Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2009: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
promote 4
promote 2
Line 1: Line 1:
== March 2009 ==
== March 2009 ==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Surrender of Japan}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rudolf Wolters}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rhyolite, Nevada}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rhyolite, Nevada}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arthur Sifton}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arthur Sifton}}

Revision as of 21:45, 21 March 2009

March 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 SandyGeorgia 21:45, 21 March 2009 [1].

Surrender of Japan

Nominator(s): User:Raul654
previous FAC (Nov 2005)

This is an article I previously nominated here on the FAC. It was written by user:Wwoods, and heavily edited by me. (It's a topic that's both contentious and complicated, as history topics go - hence the use of a lot of quotes.) I think it's good enough to be promoted to FA. Raul654 (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Nom restarted - old nom Raul654 (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Images and sources reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments A very interesting article, but I found a few problems:

  1. The lead should be expanded, in my opinion. The current lead does not fully summarize the article. For instance, the information from the three first sections is mentioned. Per WP:LEAD it should be 4 paragraph long.
    Done (See below). Raul654 (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. By 1945, the war was going very badly for Japan. Is this sentence really necessary?
    Yes - That's the thesis of the background section. Raul654 (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the offending clause myself. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In 'August 13–14' subsection the last sentence in the first paragraph: President Truman ordered a resumption of military operations. duplicates what is said in the last paragraph of the same section. It should be removed.
    Good catch - I've merged the two. Raul654 (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Please, fix links to dab pages.
    Done. Raul654 (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is all. Ruslik (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd respectfully disagree with the lead comment; I think that it should be a little longer (maybe three paras), but not four; that would make it too long IMHO. Plus, what are you going to talk about? The topic is the surrender; are you going to go through all of the end of the war in the lead? I hope not :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 13:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the lead to 3 paragraphs. It now broadly covers everything in the rest of the article. Raul654 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with 3 paragraph lead. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further thoughts: Divisions in Japanese Leadership section has confusing prose. First seven paragraphs (Japanese policy-making centered on... to Because of its ambiguity) all read like bullet points and don't get to the point in a clear way, in addition to the actual bullet list. "Japanese leaders had always envisioned...." reads like an additional thesis and is unclear on what negotiated settlement means in this context
    • The first paragraphs in that section ("Japanese policy-making centered on ... collapse of an existing government") are necessary because it's impossible to meaningfully discuss the Japanese government's decision to surrender without talking about the decision-making apparatus of the Japanese government.
    • Everything after that discusses Japan's ideas regarding the end of the war. From the first day of the war they planned to end the war by negotiating with the Allies on favorable terms that let them keep some of their conquests, but by 1945 things were going badly enough that, for the first time, they finally started to reconsider peace on less-than-favorable terms. (That is the thesis of the rest of the section).
    • I've split that section to make this more clear. Raul654 (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Tech. Review
Dabs and external links (checker tools)
  • ...are found up to speed
Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS)
  • There are refs that are duplicated and appear as such in the ref section, a ref name can be used instead. (the citation content is pasted below)
  • Hasegawa, 244
  • Hoyt, 409
  • The following ref name is used to name more than one different ref, when it should only be used to name 1 specific ref.
Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. 14 red links, 14 links are dead ends, isn't cool nor perfect to a FA. MachoCarioca (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's totally spurious. They're all valid redlinks (place names and significant political and military figures); the only reason there are a lot of them is because our coverage of 1940s Japanese politics is incomplete. This is precisely the kind of situation for which redlinks were intended. – iridescent 16:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not a valid oppose: see WP:RED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I counted only 8 red links in the article. I've removed two of them, as they were went to colonels who were did not play significant roles in the coup (e.g, people who were not notable because of either their rank or actions). The rest of them, IMO, are significant enough to merit articles. Raul654 (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Spurious is your POV, sorry, iridescent. This is not an ordinary article, but one intended to be EXCELLENT, FEATURED, right? My criteria is higher than WP:RED, it s not my fault if it is lower. This is not an encyclopedia but Wikipedia, made with wikifications; an excellent article must have a perfect wikification to be featured, without dead ends. Users must go to somewhere in ANY link they click, to be EXCELLENT, FEATURED. *****This is not just about writtings. But I can support Aude views, waht about that, is it valid now?. As you see, reasons everybody has some. I don't agree in supporting 'excellent' articles by low standards. I can´t oppose it with lower standards than showed in politics, but higher?? Thanks. MachoCarioca (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I strongly oppose the same star to be given to 'all-blue' articles and to articles with 5, 10, 25 or 50 (the number doesn't matter) dead links. Excellence here, in my view, is not just about the writtings. Sorry Raul, best wishes .. and ....what about complete the job? MachoCarioca (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Judge this article on its own merits, not by the fact that it links to ones that don't exist. That's the whole point of WP:RED policy. I do not have the time, resources, or inclination to write articles on some fairly obscure Japanese people from that period - my interest is this article up to FA status. Raul654 (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: no issues. Jappalang (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I'm not ready to support. I think the article needs to provide more context for use of the atomic bombs, though per WP:SUMMARY, it need not go into excess detail either. But there is no mention of the decision and deliberations about using the atomic bombs.

I'm enough satisfied with the changes in response to my concerns, and those in response to Ferrylodge, to withdraw my oppose. I do think there is some room for improvement, such as mentioning the "Committee of Three". But, I don't have time right now to do further detailed review or help with editing myself. Overall, I think the article is quite good and well-written. --Aude (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of discussion in the article about how the Japanese had some willingness to surrender and were looking for ways they could do so, then why the atomic bombs?
    • This is already covered extensively. The article explicitly says that the Japanese were not seeking peace on terms acceptable to the Allies. (See the first quote in the 'Divisions within the Japanese leadership' section). And they were seeking it through a the USSR, which wanted the war to continue and did their best to scuttle negotiations. Raul654 (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why were the terms not acceptable to the Allies? (see my comments below, regarding political consequences and the American public opinion at the time) I think that is the missing piece. This article should shed some light on that question. --Aude (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even after the events of August 9, the military half of the cabinet favored a four-condition peace -- preservation of the emperor, self-disarmament, Japanese control of war crimes trials, and no occupation of Japan. - Frank, 291. Other than the first, none of these terms would have been acceptable to the allies. They contravene several explicit points of the Potsdam declaration. And all of that is already listed in the August 8–9 : Soviet invasion and Nagasaki section. Raul654 (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As well, there was a lack of unanimity within the Truman administration on the decision to use the atomic bombs. The article could use some discussion about that. Here are some basic summary details that provide more context:
The "Committee of Three", consisting of his Secretary of War Henry Stimson, Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, and Acting Secretary of State Joseph Grew, advocated for an alternative approach for getting the Japanese to surrender, other than use of the atomic bomb. They suggested language for the Potsdam Declaration that would allow Japan to maintain its emperor as a "constitutional monarchy." Truman's adviser, James F. Byrnes, showed concern about political consequences of changing the unconditional surrender policy which was popular among Americans. He also thought that use of the atomic bomb would give the Soviets pause in their supposed expansionist plans. Truman remained committed to a unconditional surrender, and use of the atomic bomb.
It might be worth adding a note to the "Potsdam declaration" section discussing dissent in the Allied governments about the status of the emperor. I'll see about addressing this.
Done. Raul654 (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issues surrounding the atomic bomb are long-winded and contentious (so much so that the bombings article was split into two articles - one describing the bombings and the other the decision to use the bomb). The scope of this article should (at most) include to the bomb's influence of Japan's decision to surrender, but not more than that. As such, I don't think a discussion of the use of the atomic bomb from the American perspective is in the scope of this article. Raul654 (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How the U.S. came to the decision to use the atomic bombs (versus other options) in order to get Japan to surrender is very much pertinent to an article on the "Surrender of Japan". Something should definitely be mentioned about Joseph Grew, James Forrestal, and Henry L. Stimson (the "Committee of Three"), and other aspects of the decision. I suggest 1-2 paragraphs summarizing the issues and decision regarding the bomb, and the debate within the Truman administration at the time. To do otherwise, I think means there is insufficient context and possibly POV issues. I think material about this aspect of the Japanese surrender can be done concisely and well, per summary style. Also, in terms of sourcing, Gar Alperovitz has written extensively (and his work has been extensively cited) on the decision of using the bomb and the Japanese surrender. If you can get his book (along with other sources to provide balance) and use it for filling in this part of the story, that would help address my concerns. --Aude (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Raul654 (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does discuss about the Japanese reaction and were discussion the possibility of surrender after Hiroshima, which begs the question... Why the second bomb? Why so soon after the first? The timespan of four days really didn't give the Japanese much time to react and try to surrender. But, the U.S. decided to use the second one anyway.
    • The short answer is that the Japanese (a) did not believe they had been hit by an atomic bomb, or (b) believed the US did not have a large supply of them. (Both of these points are already covered in the article) The article does not state that American planners correctly anticipated both of these reactions, and used the second atomic bomb shortly after the first in order to disprove both of these positions (and to give the Japanese the impression that the US could keep dropping atomic bombs every few days). Raul654 (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is adequately addressed. --Aude (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe all above issues have been addressed. Raul654 (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments from Aude:

Looking at the prose, I think some copyediting is needed.

  • "By 1945, for nearly two years, " - this could be reworded, and also change "had suffered" to the active tense, "suffered". Perhaps something like, "From [Month] 1943 to 1945, Japan suffered an unbroken string ..."?
  • "Japanese shipyard at Kure, Japan" -> "Kure Naval Arsenal" (this change also eliminates the easter egg).
  • I also see a lot more redirect links, some having to do with Japanese spelling (my personal css is set to show redirect links in a different color, so these are quite obvious to me). This isn't such a big deal and I don't care too much if it's fixed but would be nice.

I don't have time right now to fix redirects throughout the article, nor comment fully on prose. --Aude (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, the lead mentions that the USSR invaded Manchuria on August 9. But it was more than just an invasion of Manchuria, right? The bigger picture is that the USSR declared war on Japan at that time, so I would think that belongs in the lead.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're talking about the Sakahlin and Kuriles invasions, I believe. I don't think they're significant enough to merit a mention in the lead. The lead sentence explicitly dates the Soviet invasion (August 9), while those two did not begin until several days later. Raul654 (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean that the USSR and Japan went from a relationship of peace to a relationship of war on August 9, 1945 and that is not clear from the lead. Just saying that the USSR invaded Japan on that date does not convey the message, IMO. The Normandy Invasion did not signify the start of a war between two countries, but the Manchuria invasion did.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good point. I've updated the lead accordingly. Raul654 (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's mentioned that Stimson struck Kyoto from the target list, but it seems from the current text of the article that it was some kind of personal nostalgic decision by Stimson, since he honeymooned there. In fact, Stimson knew that Kyoto was of great historical and cultural significance, it was the greatest religious center in Japan, and preserving it was necessary for a stable and friendly postwar Japan.[2] Maybe we could briefly clarify that Stimson made the decision for larger than personal sentimental reasons?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the blockquotes in this article are disconcerting because they do not indicate who is being quoted, unless you go to the footnote. For example: "Although Suzuki might indeed have seen peace as a distant goal, he had no design to achieve it within any immediate time span or on terms acceptable to the Allies. His own comments at the conference of senior statesmen gave no hint that he favored any early cessation of the war ... Suzuki's selections for the most critical cabinet posts were, with one exception, not advocates of peace either." Maybe such a blockquote could be prefaced by something like, "According to historian so-and-so:"Ferrylodge (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At some point, the Americans initially told Hirohito unambiguously that he could remain as emperor. Does this article say when that point occurred? If so, I missed it. There's a lot of discussion in this article about whether the Americans would let that happen, but no indication of when the final decision was made, or when it was communicated to the Japanese.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presumably this happened eventually, but if it did, I am not aware of it. It almost certainly would not have happened until after the occupation and started but before the list of class A war criminals was released (which would put it somewhere between September 1945 and spring 1946). Raul654 (talk)
  • A nitpick....Do any other featured articles have huge multi-sentence parentheticals? "(The pilot, Marcus McDilda, was lying. He knew nothing of the Manhattan project, and simply told his interrogators what he thought they wanted to hear in order to end the torture. The lie, which caused him to be classified as a high-priority prisoner, probably saved him from beheading.[74] In reality, the United States would have had the third bomb ready for use around August 19, and a fourth in September 1945.[75] The third bomb would probably have been used against Tokyo.[76])" I would urge either removing the parentheses here, or moving the whole thing to a footnote.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a typical reader would probably be curious to know whether the Soviet invasion of Manchuria on August 9, and the Nagasaki bombing on August 9, happened by coincidence or not on the same day. My understanding from Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945) is that the Soviet invasion began precisely three months after the German surrender on May 8, as promised at Yalta, and that news of the nuclear attacks on the two cities played no role in the timing of the Soviet attack. How about vice versa: were the nuclear attacks timed to deliver a double-whammy to Japan, or were they just delivered as soon as possible?Ferrylodge (talk) 07:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The bombs were intentionally dropped close together in order to give the Japanese the false impression that the United States possessed a large supply of them. (This is already covered in the article -- "American strategists, having anticipated a reaction like Toyoda's, planned to drop a second bomb shortly after the first, in order to demonstrate to the Japanese that the US had a large supply of them") That the second one and the Soviet invasion happened on the same day is a coincidence -- the Allies and the Soviets never shared that kind of tactical information (and, in fact, there would have been no point, since the anticipated dates for both the invasion and the bombs changed frequently). Raul654 (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Potsdam Conference is described this way: "High ranking officials of the major Allied powers met at the Potsdam Conference...." That sounds like a ministerial meeting. How about briefly mentioning that it was a top-level meeting of the allied leaders, including Truman and Stalin? And wasn't it at Potsdam (or en route) that Truman learned of the success of the bomb in New Mexico? That seems worth mentioning (plus that Truman therefore no longer really needed the help of the USSR to defeat Japan).Ferrylodge (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tweaked the beginning of that section to make the participants more accurate.
    • The trinity test is mentioned in the previous section discussing the Manhattan project. You're right that the test occurred while Truman was at Potsdam, and that he was elated about it, but I don't think this point is sigifnicant enough to merit a mention here. You're incorrect that he no longer needed Soviet help to defeat the Japanese (the JCS would, to the time Japan surrendered, advise him that Soviet intervention was likely to shorten the war and reduce American casualties, which was his primary objective) Raul654 (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that we don't have to mention Truman's elation, but it seems like the overall chronology wuold be clearer and more cohesive if the Potsdam section would very briefly mention that that's when Truman learned of the trinity explosion. Incidentally, though I disagree with them, some historians claim that Truman's main motive in dropping the bombs "was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia."[3] Truman at least must have realized that dropping the bombs would limit the Soviet advance onto Japanese-held territory. This article already makes very clear that the Soviets wanted “to prolong the war” so they could transfer troops to the Pacific theatre and snatch up Japanese-held territory. Dropping the bombs thwarted that process, even if that wasn’t Truman’s intended result. Anyway, if we could briefly mention that Truman learned of trinity at Potsdam, that might help readers to keep track of all these inter-related events and how they fit together chronologically.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the military details, this article says in one section, "The search [of the coup plotters for the recording by Hirohito] was made more difficult by a blackout, caused by Allied bombings, and by the archaic organization and layout of the Imperial House Ministry." In another section, this article says, "B-29s from the 315 Bombardment Wing flew 3,800 miles to destroy the Nippon Oil Company refinery at Tsuchizaki on the northern tip of Honshu." But weren't these two things actually very closely related; the blackout was in response to the incoming B-29s, according to the following unreliable source: "The Japanese early radar warning system picked up the approach of the 315th Wing. Since the B-29Bs would be flying just east of Tokyo, the city responded with a blackout."[4] Thus, it seems like serendipity that the bombing mission to the Nippon Oil Company triggered a blackout that foiled the coup.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the blackout was caused by 143 incoming bombers of the 315th bombardment wing, which were en route to the refinery. (Smith, 215) I'm not sure if all or just some of them were en route to bomb the refinery. The connection between the bombing and the blackout is the thesis of Smith's book. Raul654 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whether to mention the connection in this Wikipedia article is not something I'm very concerned about (it's not currently mentioned). However, I am concerned that the present language seems misleading: "The search was made more difficult by a blackout, caused by Allied bombings...." The blackout wasn't caused by any bombing, but rather by a mistaken belief that bombers were on the way.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think it is mistaken. The refinery bombing was one of many taking place that night. It's eminently possible that Tokyo was hit. Even if Toyko was not hit, it's still accurate - the Allies *were* bombing Japan, and the major cities turned out their lights in response. Raul654 (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Regardless of what parts of Japan were bombed that night, the blackout was a preventive measure due to the threat of incoming, rather than a result of bombs having knocked out the lights. This seems like a significant difference, but it's no huge deal if you think the current language is okay.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. From what I've seen the article is very well-written, and all of my concerns have been addressed, except one which I haven't mentioned and don't feel very emphatic about: the lead sentence says that Japan surrendered in August, but actually it's not so clear that they did. The official surrender was on September 2. I wish I had more time to go over this with a fine-tooth comb, but what I've seen is top-notch. Plus I'm not a cricket. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made some time to go through the article with my fine-tooth comb, which hopefully was not too aggravating for the authors of the article. I made a lot of tiny changes, and am all done now (for today). It still looks like an excellent article that deserves to be featured.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a pic of War Minister Anami. Regarding the pic of MacArthur at the bottom, do we really need it? It seems kind of anomalous. It's the only color photo, it's facing away from the text, and it is not near any pertinent text. There's already a pic at the top of the article showing the ceremony on the Missouri.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I moved the MacArthur pic up.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm totally all through tweaking the article until it gets featured.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The entire article is important and it looks very good, - at the end of the intro the lead says: "up into the 1970s" I think "into the 1970s" sounds simpler...and better, otherwise Support...Modernist (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion (I didn't care for the phrasing either). Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 23:43, 17 March 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 SandyGeorgia 21:45, 21 March 2009 [5].

Rudolf Wolters

Nominator(s): Fainites (talk), Mattisse (talk), Wehwalt (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because... in my view it meets the criteria. It is a GA that has had a peer review. It is an offshoot of my very well received Albert Speer article, about his (well, take your pick) either Boswell or Mr. Smithers, Rudolf Wolters, who did so much for Speer for so many years, and in his final years, exposed Speer's knowledge of the persecution of the Jews. There is no hagiography here, Wolters is himself a very mixed character, as the article reader will find out.Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:The following ref is duplicated, a ref name should be used instead.

  • {{Harvnb|van der Vat|1997|p=298.}}
The following ref name is used more than once for different references
  • woltlet
Dabs and external links are found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 23:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Generally, this is a quality article, researched in depth and presented in compelling prose. My various relatively minor concerns have been adequately addressed, below. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have one major concern, and a small number of minor quibbles/queries.

    • Article structure: This is my main point. The last, very long, subsection is called "Speer released". The section is about much more than that; it covers all the years up to Wolters's death. The paragraph should be appropriately subdivided, most of it under a new main heading which could be called "Later life" or some such. Wolters, not Speer, is the focus of this article. Apart from the structural necessity, subdivision would help break up a whopping slab of prose.
    • (Minor points from now) I'd like to know how Wolters supported himself before his first paid employment in 1931. He doesn't appear to have come from a wealthy family - how did he survive?
    • I'd also like to know how, having been a close associate of a major war criminal, Wolters apparently escaped investigation by the Allies at the war's end.
    • In the Spandau section, paragraph 3, you reintroduce "Riesser". I had forgotten who she was. Could you call her "Marion Riesser" here?
    • Denazification: this began, according to the link article, in 1946. If it lasted "nearly 20 years" it had finished by 1965 or 1966, which was well before Brandt became Chancellor.
    • Any chance of more images for the latter part?

I don't see any reason why these points shouldn't be settled quite quickly, and I look forward to moving to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've split the subsection in question. I can't think of a better term than "Speer released", which I think conveys much more than the actual release from Spandau, but the time after that as well. I don't have a source on how he survived without income. Perhaps his parents and friends subsidized him, or he worked in menial professions. Starving students get along, it is almost proverbial, and if his parents put him through college and grad school, they could have kept up the support until he went to Siberia for the railroad. These things happen. The civil denazification proceedings against Speer did not commence until (I think, I don't have my refs with me) 1952 when he was given very short notice of them at Spandau. Brandt did put an end to them. The Nuremberg and other tribunals had nothing to do with denazification. I've reintroduced Riesser.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for how Wolters evaded investigation, he was not a Party member, was not captured, and his post at the OT was not intensely political. Maybe they did investigate him. But he hung out in the British zone who were fairly lax about such things.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've rephrased the Willy Brandt thing. It apparently happened in 1966, when Brandt was Vice-Chancellor, according to this source. Since as you point out, Wolters needs to be the focus of this article (and that was the difficult part for us in writing this article, since the figure of Speer just towers over Wolters everywhere you go), I've just noted that Brandt ended it. I can say "future West German Chancellor" but that starts begging questions. Just call him Willy Brandt, people can click if they don't know who he is.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've struggled to find any images at all of Wolters. There's hundreds of Yogi (Speer) but very few of BooBoo (Wolters). It may be possible to obtain a photograph of one of his more modern buildings on a trip to germany later in the year.Fainites barleyscribs 17:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The odds are I will be in Germany in May. However, I have no idea if I can go to Dusseldorf or Coesfeld, and the article adequately meets FA as it stands. The thing is, since almost no attention was paid to Wolters in his lifetime, there were few images of him. For the buildings he did later, we can't justify fair use, so would need free use, which means Fainites or me going and getting pix while we are in Germany. However, I think we have enough at present to make it through FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Fainites barleyscribs 19:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image question is not central. I am less convinced that the heading "Speer released" is adequate for the long section which follows, even though Wolters' death has now been transferred to a separate section. The main subject of "Speer released" is the deterioration in Wolters' relationship with Speer following the latter's release. It would help navigation through the article if the section heading reflected this, or if the section was further divided. I won't press the point if other reviewers don't think it an issue, but please consider. Brianboulton (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've retitled "Deterioration of relationship". I am by no means wedded to that title, if anyone has a better idea, please implement it. I broke the section where I did because it seemed the most logical point. To break anyplace earlier would have been artificial.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Well done. Just one comment. Would it not be better to have redlinks (e.g., for Ernst Wolf Mommsen, Matthias Schmidt,...) rather an external link to the German wikipedia? In that way, someone could see the need for an English version through statistics tools. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Red_links. Also I don't think there is supposed to be wikilinks within quotations (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#General_principles). --RelHistBuff (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of my collaborators and me, thanks. Four minutes into my birthday per Wikipedia, nice present. I have removed all but one link within quotes, the one I have left is in the Spandau section and refers to "Ludwigsberg Central Office" (for war crimes). There is no way to work that into the surrounding text and it is not going to be known to the reader. Better to leave it. As for the other point, I've looked at the MOS and it is no help: Is it better to have a redlink or a link to a foreign language Wikipedia? I'm inclined to go with the latter. The former gives the reader no guidance, the latter gives the reader the opportunity to go to Google Translate.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of support (1a). But I find things that need to be better expressed throughout. Here are examples from the top.

  • End of opening para: "After Speer's release, the friendship slowly collapsed, and the two men never saw each other in the final decade before Speer died in 1981." Possibly: "After Speer's release, the friendship slowly collapsed, and they saw nothing of each other in the decade before Speer's death in 1981.
  • "Bestselling"—perhaps "best-selling".
  • "..., until and the two men became so embittered that Wolters allowed papers showing Speer's knowledge of the persecution of the Jews to become public in [year]."
  • I know "also" is my hobby-horse ... but I can't really see how it helps in the last sentence of the lead.
  • "architectural-based" ... can't it be just "architectural"?
  • "Wolters passed a generally happy childhood, punctuated by the chaos of the war years and childhood illness—the latter resulted in his being taught at home for a year by two priests." --> "Wolters passed a generally happy childhood, punctuated by the chaos of the war years, and by a childhood illness that resulted in his being taught at home for a year by two priests."
  • My mania against "also" has created an opportunity to improve this more broadly:
"In 1924, Wolters met Albert Speer, who was a year behind him. Wolters transferred to the Technical University of Berlin later in 1924; Speer also transferred there the following year." -->
"In 1924, Wolters met Albert Speer, who was a year behind him. Wolters transferred to the Technical University of Berlin later that year, followed by Speer in 1925."
  • Sounds too passive: "Wolters obtained his degree in 1927, remaining at the school to receive his doctorate two years later." --> "Wolters obtained his degree in 1927, and earned his doctorate at the school two years later."
  • Jolt: "In 1933, Wolters returned to Berlin, where he briefly worked as an assistant in Speer's office before taking another position with the Reichsbahn, this time with pay." So the first one was without pay? The reader has to reverse-engineer this. Add "unpaid" before "assistant", moving to "before taking a paid position ...".
  • "so GBI became somewhat of a political sanctuary". the GBI, perhaps; and "something of a".
  • En dash for "North–South Axis" ... it is translated from the German, so we have license to correct.

I think this one is destined to be promoted, but please polish it. Perhaps don't buzz me again, since there are problems elsewhere on the FAC list.Tony (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have made those changes. One thing though, the reference to Wolters' work with the Reichsbahn being paid was not an implication that he worked for Speer for free, but that, as is mentioned, the first time he worked for the railroad he was not paid. Since it was several paragraphs before, and you've just shown that the reader might forget that, I've made it explicit. As you have requested, I will not buzz you back to revisit the article, but take your full support as given. If Sandy wants me to have you come back to the article, I hope she will tell me that.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: most of the images check out fine, except File:Coesfeld Fußgängerzone.jpg: why does it carry the wording "This picture may have usage restrictions"? Jappalang (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. And yet it is from the Commons. I'd like to keep it for the article, but if it is going to be a hitch for FA, I'll delete it. Does anyone have thoughts on this?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well... perhaps approach the uploader and clarify with him the meaning of this (and perhaps get him to remove it)? He seems to speak only German... Jappalang (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instead, I've replaced with another photo from Coesfeld which does not have the same language and was uploaded by a different editor. I'd be grateful if you would indicate that the article's images now have a clean bill of health.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, with that replacement, the images in the article check out fine. Jappalang (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Three supports, no opposes, all checks done. The defense rests.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 16 March 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 Karanacs 17:37, 17 March 2009 [6].

Rhyolite, Nevada

Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets all of the requirements. It's about a popular Nevada ghost town that had a brief but spectacular life as a gold-rush settlement in the first decade of the 20th century. My thanks to User:Admiral Norton for a GA review and to User:Ruhrfisch for a peer review. Finetooth (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I recently peer reviewed this and found it to be up to the FA criteria. Ref 3 needs an access date, and I wish we knew if the caboose pictured used to be the gas station, but otherwise I have no suggestions for improvement. In the interest of full disclosure, I made a few copyedits and did make the locator map some time ago. Very well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words and support. I have added the missing access date to Ref. 3. Thanks for spotting this. Finetooth (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, made a few tweaks but this looks ready. A couple of items:
    • "Another building housed the Rhyolite Mining Stock Exchange ..." The section beginning with this sentence needs some clarity; it's written as if the stock exchanges bought and sold shares ("opened ... to trade shares" and "it had bought and sold"). That isn't strictly true - traders buy and sell shares, usually through a broker.
    • You've been spoiling us with modern-day currency equivalencies until the Bust section. Are these figures in historical dollars or current?
--Laser brain (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support, and bless you for catching the stock exchange error. I unwittingly compressed the source's explanation beyond recognition. I have re-written three sentences, and I hope this section now makes better sense. I've also converted the bullion figure that opens the Bust section and added a clarifying "historical dollars" comment about the stock prices. With the stock prices, I think the fluctuations are more important than the gross amounts. Finetooth (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tech. Review

Dabs (toolbox)
  • ..are up to speed.
External links (toolbox)
  • ..are up to speed.
Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS)
  • The following ref is duplicated, and appears as such in the ref section, use a ref name instad
Thank you. I have fixed the duplicate ref. Those rascals are hard to see. Finetooth (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome, yeah, that's why the script does it for me :P (Ref formatting is up to speed.)--₮RUCӨ 00:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for checking these and for fixing the ref errors. Try as I might to ferret them out, a couple of those "p" and "pp" critters always seem to hide in the eelgrass. Finetooth (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is a wonderful article, drawing in many facets of American history {The Panic of 1907!), geology, finance, mining, (and more) all concisely worded. Pristine prose. Wonderful pictures and captions. A neat TOC, and a comprehensible list of references, this is (to me) what an FA should be. It draws in the reader to learn more, rather than presenting overwhelming evidence that you have covered all the bases. I commend you on your judicious use of wikilinks to a world of articles on other subjects. I don't pretend to know whether you have covered all the MoS issues. But it is obvious that a great deal of care has gone into the construction of this fine article. Minor, minor nitpick is the use of "lies". But really, this is so minor. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your extremely kind words and support. (I must not let this go to my head.) Is the "lies" in the Bottle House caption the one you mean? Would plain "is" be better? Or "fell into"? Finetooth (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is sooo minor, but I was referring to places, such as "Rhyolite lies". But I tried to think of a substitute and did not immediately come up with one. (When it comes to wording, I am over-the-top picky!) —Mattisse (Talk) 12:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I like picky. I couldn't see it before, but now I do. I used essentially the same device a half-dozen times to avoid the passive "is located". I have changed three of the "lie" or "lies" to "is" to vary the pattern. Please let me know if that still doesn't cut it. Finetooth (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is fine! —Mattisse (Talk) 16:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: I sorted out File:Charles M. Schwab - Project Gutenberg eText 17976.jpg and File:Montgomery mine panorama cropped middle.jpg, so along with the self-taken images, the images in the article check out okay. Jappalang (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks, Jappalang. Finetooth (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words and support. Finetooth (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for offering. Are these Library of Congress photos different from the mine photo I've already used? Finetooth (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a few, actually, and I believe there's also a higher-res version of the mine. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they are in the public domain and better than what we already have, please do. That would be great. Finetooth (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • In general, I'm struck by the similarity between this and similar places here in Alaska like Eagle and Circle, though both of those towns still survive tenuously.
  • In the lede, you give distances to what I assume are the nearest existing settlements -- could you also provide the distance to a city that a reader is more likely to be familiar with, such as Las Vegas?
Good suggestion. Las Vegas added to the first sentence of the lede. Finetooth (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume the Bullfrog Mining District's name is derived from the Bullfrog Hills, but could you state that explicitly?
Yes. Done, citing Lingenfelter. Finetooth (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. It was so named after the Bullfrog mining claim was filed, implicitly derived from the claim, not the hills. Finetooth (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now explicit. Both stem from the name the two prospectors gave to their mine. Sourced to Nevada Place Names. Finetooth (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the names section, why is felsic in quotes?
Operator error. Fixed, and I thank you. Finetooth (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also confused about the order in which things happened -- was the Bullfrog mine and district named after the hills, or vice-versa? I'd assume the former, but ...
Implicitly vice-versa. I have ducked on making this claim directly in the article because, although my sources imply it, none actually says directly that the Bullfrog Hills were named after the original mining claim. Finetooth (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No longer ducking. Nevada Place Names makes it explicit. All things Bullfroggy in the region stem from the Bullfrog Mine name chosen by Cross and Harris. I have added a sentence to this effect to the Names section of the article and cited the place names book. Thanks for this nudge. Finetooth (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When referencing Yucca Mountain, I'd suggest "proposed" before the link to the waste depository.
Good point. Done. Finetooth (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the boom section, I'd suggest "grew to a population of 1,200 people"
I changed the sentence to read, "Starting as a two-man camp in January 1905, Rhyolite became a town of 1,200 people in two weeks and reached a population of 2,500 by June 1905." Finetooth (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about this, but since you've got conversions for everything else, would it be appropriate to convert the references to "a ton" into metric tons as well?
I had given this some thought earlier but decided that the additional conversions would make the sentences harder to read without adding information of much value. On the other hand, prompted by your question, I have now linked the first use of "ton" to short ton. Will this suffice? Finetooth (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words and helpful suggestions. Finetooth (talk) 14:21, 15 March 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 Karanacs 17:37, 17 March 2009 [7].

Arthur Sifton

Nominator(s): Sarcasticidealist (talk)

This is the next step in List of premiers of Alberta's long, slow march towards featured topic status. FAC has already heard the thrilling story of Alexander Cameron Rutherford's forced resignation at the hands of the Alberta and Great Waterways Railway scandal, but don't you wonder what happened next in with the government of Alberta? No? Well, read this article anyway.

More seriously, this article has undergone WP:GAC and WP:PR processes, with useful comments at each. I look forward to receiving more here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, this is really good. I geared up for making a laundry list due to the length but I didn't find much. Some trifles:
    • Do Canadians not use the date / month format, like 26 October?
    • Likewise, capitalizing the first letter after a colon when it begins a complete sentence?
    • There is some inconsistency in beginning sentences with "In <date>"; sometimes you use a comma, sometimes you don't. I added commas to all the ones I saw, but please check through again.
    • "Election day returns showed Sifton with ..." This construction is ungainly, but I can't think if anything new at the moment.
    • "It was not only in agricultural policy that the UFA made its influence felt." Prefer "spread its influence".
    • "Though he was not yet an old man, 58 at the time of joining the government ..." I don't know about this. Would you object to "Although he was only 58 at the time of joining government ..."?
Kudos. --Laser brain (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the review (always easy to thank a reviewer for a positive one...). With regards to your points about Canadian English, I can tell you that the way I've done both is the way most commonly used in Canada, though I couldn't say whether this is because it's the Canadian way or because of American influence (for example, "check" is far more common than "cheque" here, though the latter is considered the correct spelling). We're a confused people. I've made the two changes you suggested; I agree that both are improvements. I'm not sure that I find the "election day results..." bit unwieldy, but I also have a huge crush on unwieldy language, so I may not be the best judge of this. Anyway, thanks again for the support. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tech. Review
Dabs
  • There is a self-redirect to the article, I don't know whether it is intentional or accidental.
External links
  • ..are found up to speed.
Ref formatting
  • The following refs are duplicated and appear in the ref section as such, a ref name should be used instead.
  • Thomas 111
  • Hall 38
  • The following ref names are used more than once to name different refs, when it should only name one specific ref.
Ref formatting fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC
Yep.--₮RUCӨ 22:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments This is what I like about WP - never heard of the chap but decided to have a read/review and glad I did. Ready to support but could you pls action this:

  • "Moreover, his victories were marred by accusations of unethical electoral tactics." As the last sentence in a paragraph, and because it's a strong statement in itself, this should be cited.

Apart from a couple of trivial changes I did on my own, just a few other minor suggestions, though support won't be conditional on these:

  • Heh, I know you've admitted the American influence is strong, but do we have to begin sentences with "But", as is "But when Sifton and Scott raised the issue with the new Prime Minister"...?! How about "However..."
  • I think non-English expressions like en banc are generally italicised.
  • "although he led the party to victory in each of the 1913 and 1917 elections..." Is "each of" really necessary, seems like clutter to me.

Anyway, very well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed all of your points except the first; that one I'll address this evening, when I have my references handy. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now addressed your first concern as well. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's fine - full support, well done! cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved concerns from Resolute

Comments I have a feeling that in reading your work, I am going to learn more about Alberta's premiers than anyone ever thought there was to know! I especially like how the entire time of Sifton's leadership is almost a complete mirror of today... Alberta being overwhelmingly Liberal federally, Conservatives opposing the Liberals proroguing the legislature, etc. Very good read. I really have only some very minor points.

  • "Sifton's first foray into politics was in 1878, when he campaigned for the introduction of prohibition under the auspices of the Canada Temperance Act in Lisgar and Marquette." We've already read that Sifton has moved from Ontario to Winnipeg to PA to Calgary. As we are now going back in time with this statement, I have no idea where Lisgar and Marquette are. It may also help to state that he was campaigning in the electoral districts of Lisgar and Marquette, unless they were also towns?
  • "He was re-elected in 1883, and did not seek re-election at the conclusion of this second term[2] (though he did briefly consider running for mayor before concluding that he had insufficient support to be elected)." The use of parentheses seems to be unnecessary here, though I am not sure how to reword it. Do we know if Sifton's decision not to run for a third term was the result of his belief he did not have support to run for Mayor? Or did his move to PA have some impact on this decision, or vice versa?
  • "Sifton was immediately one of the area's most prominent Liberals, and was named president of the Alberta Liberals shortly thereafter" Is this anachronistic? Given the area that is now Alberta was still part of the NWT in 1901, was there such a thing as the "Alberta Liberals" at that time? Or did he become the president of what would become the Alberta Liberals when Alberta joined confederation in 1905?
  • "Much of his work was criminal" I am not sure if this needs to be rewritten, but I did laugh at the concept of most of a judge and politician's work being criminal. Might it be better to say that "much of his work was in criminal law"?
  • "Arthur Sifton's political style was to remain aloof and detached, and to say no more than necessary; it is from this that he earned the nickname "the Sphinx"." You've already stated in a previous section that he was called the Sphinx. Is it necessary to do so a second time?
  • In the election tables, you have an unexplained 1 as a superscript to his 1917 seat totals. I presume that it is related to note 94 on Cross winning two ridings, but if there is any reason for this note to be different, it is not explained.

Otherwise, fantastic work, as usual! Resolute 03:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

These issues should be easy to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done in all cases. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:12, 15 March 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 Karanacs 17:37, 17 March 2009 [8].

Uru: Ages Beyond Myst

Nominator(s): Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk)

The issues at last FAC (specifically, prose) was cleared up with Laser brain's kind assistance. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technical Review
Dabs (dabs checker tool)
  • ...are found up to speed.
External links (links checker tool)
  • There is a dead link

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just Adventure "According to its about, it has editorial policies and editors, and has been referenced in reliable print publications. It's an interview and is being used solely to source the interviewee's comments, not any content by the site's authors", and you say "I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves." Sorry I forgot to put that at the top of the FAC so you wouldn't have to worry about that: as for Adventure Gamers: trusted reviewer at Metacritic and Game Rankings, around for 10 years, there is an editor-and-chief, and here's its other editorial policies. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Prose/Layout/Style

Plot
  • "Unlike previous games, Uru's story mixes fictional plot elements with real-world events." - Maybe this should start with "Unlike previous games in the series..." so it's not so inclusive.
  • "Players begin Uru's story in New Mexico by the Cleft..." - "...near the Cleft" might be more clear.
Development
  • "...saying "there is not [sic] leveling and skills and monsters and experience in any artificial sense." - Does this require a [sic]? It's an awkwardly worded sentence to be sure, but it seems grammatically correct, considering its use of the word "leveling" as a gaming concept.
  • "The game was originally conceived as a multiplayer-only game where players could meet solve new puzzles added monthly." - This might read better as "The game was originally conceived as a multiplayer-only game where players could meet solve new puzzles that would be added monthly."
  • "...Cyan eventually developed the single-player portion as well." - Might sound better with an "a" instead of "the".
  • "Uru was released with Uru Live delayed." - A little unclear. Maybe something like "Uru was released on schedule, but the multiplayer portion was delayed."
Audio
  • "When the player is in the game's rendering of New Mexico, for example, Larkin used resonator guitar and flutes, creating what he calls something "indigenous to a southwest type of feel that's very contemporary",[26] while in other areas Larkin described the game's music as being "less typical than what you would find in most games"[26] due to the developers creating an exotic landscape." - Run-on/unclear/tense issues—consider something like "When the player is in the game's representation of New Mexico, for example, Larkin used a resonator guitar and flutes, creating what he called something 'indigenous to a southwest type of feel that's very contemporary'.[26] In other areas Larkin described the game's music as being 'less typical than what you would find in most games' because of the exotic landscape the developers had created.[26]" This also serves to rearrange those inline citations so they're not in the middle of a sentence.
  • Is that soundtrack track listing necessary? I don't think it really adds anything to the article...if it really needs to be there, it should at least be auto-collapsed for aesthetic reasons.
Uru Live
  • "GameTap brought Myst Online online in February 2007..." - To avoid two "onlines" in a row, it might read better as "GameTap released Myst Online in February 2007..."
  • This section is in kind of an awkward location, between Audio and Reception. Would it be better to make it another subsection of Development (either before or after Audio)?
  • There is an instance of an inline citation in the middle of a sentence, not after a punctuation mark (#33). There may be others scattered around, so be sure to rearrange them so they don't clutter up sentences.
Reception
  • "There was no possible port to the Macintosh, one of the early communities to adopt the Myst franchise due to a misunderstanding between Cyan and the company who did the main distribution porting." - A little awkward, consider rewording to something like "A port of the game to the Macintosh was out of the question because of a misunderstanding between Cyan and the company that did its main distribution porting, despite the popularity of the Myst franchise among Mac users." Also, this sentence seems development-based, and so feels a little out of place in Reception.
  • The entire word of "GameSpot's" should probably be wikilinked.
  • Should "near closure" be hyphenated?

Comprehensiveness

  • What are the "D'ni"? Are they a human civilization, or humanoid? Are they from a different planet? Later sentences in this section make it clear that the ending was fuzzy, and if so maybe the D'ni should be initially referred to as "mysterious" or "enigmatic" so readers don't feel like they're missing something.
  • Are there any more review scores that could be added to the review infobox?
  • The article mentions that it was nominated for two G.A.N.G. awards, but doesn't say if it won, or who did if it lost.

Sources

  • "There was no possible port to the Macintosh, one of the early communities to adopt the Myst franchise due to a misunderstanding between Cyan and the company who did the main distribution porting." - This sentence should have an inline citation. Also, there is a sentence about a Macintosh version in the Uru Live section, so they appear to conflict with each other.
  • "GameTap brought Myst Online online in February 2007, also making a Macintosh version of the game available in May." - This sentence should probably have an inline citation, unless it's covered by the one in the following sentence.
  • Is there an online location for the video reference (#10), or any other identifying features? In its current form, it is difficult to verify.
  • "The Uru soundtrack received two Game Audio Network Guild (G.A.N.G.) nominations in 2004—one for "Best Original Vocal Song (Choral)" for the "Gallery Theme", and another for "Best Original Soundtrack." - This should probably have an inline citation.

Support - All of my issues have been addressed. I'm happy with the prose, as well as the sources and images. Good work! — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've gotten to everything. There aren't any more numerical scores to add to the reviews table, unfortunately. The bit about the Macintosh port was vandalism and has been removed; I've added a citation and gone ahead and implemented your suggested changes. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. I have a few more notes (see above). I still feel that track listing should be removed or auto-collapsed though, unless you have a good reason to the contrary. Also, per the instructions at {{Template:VG reviews}}, each review in that infobox should have an inline citation. I've gone ahead and added them, because the references are already in the article anyways. Oh, and I also changed GameSpy's rating to look like stars because they use a 5-star system, and I changed two instances of "Gamespy" to look like "GameSpy" because I think that's how they render it. Does that vandalism threaten 1(e)? — Levi van Tine (t – c) 14:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. I added the citation; as to the track listing, I've hidden in previous articles but due to readability issues that's not the best option, so I leave it expanded; since there's a fair amount about audio (as opposed to a stub) and a specific song was award-winning, et al, I'd rather leave it. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I played this one, once. The article is all in order, and most of the issues to be handled have been handled. The prose and copyediting is great. ResMar 21:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments A very good article. Hekerui (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sales number is described as 450,000, but the source states this number also includes sales from Myst Exile, not only Uru. It also lacks some specification, such as "sales up to August 2004". The game surely sold more copies in the last five years.
"Uru's sales were disappointing, moving 450,000 units by late 2004;" could be improved in grammar, sales are not moving something, retailers are. Hekerui (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot about that. The 450,000 unit total for both games is completely and utterly off the mark, considering I've got an individual ref in Myst III: Exile that pegs its sales at at least 1 million alone by 2002, and that number meshes more with the 12 million total units for the franchise. So I removed the figure entirely. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's still in the lead. Hekerui (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My bad; fixed. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 02:39, 15 March 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 Karanacs 17:37, 17 March 2009 [9].

Port Chicago disaster

Nominator(s): Binksternet (talk)

This article has been recently edited to meet critical assessments made during its A-Class review. I believe it is now worthy of consideration for Featured status. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs (dabs checker tool)
  • Need to be fixed.
I deleted a link to ordnance which took the reader to a dab page giving the best match as Ammunition which I already had linked. I saw that courts-martial went through a redirect so I deleted that link, too, as I already had a link to court-martial. Otherwise, every link goes where I want it to go. Note that Concord Naval Weapons Station has long redirected to a few paragraphs within Concord, California but I just now peeled that stuff out and made it its own article. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref formatting
  • References from books, journals, magazines, etc. need to have the page number formatted as "p. 132" or "pp. 111-119"
I have seen other featured articles that use the formatting I chose; the use of bare numbers with no "p" or "pp". Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
External links
Dabs and ref formatting is also found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 01:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • You've run your publishers into your link titles for your web sources, they really need to go outside the link titles.
I moved every one of the publishers out to the front of the title of the piece, linking the title only.
  • Per the MOS, titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original
Fixed. I found five or so instance of this.
  • CUrrent ref 7 (History.com..) is lacking a last access date.
Fixed.
  • Current ref 21 (National Park Service..) is lacking a last access date.
Fixed.
  • Current ref 33 (Federal Reserve...) is lacking a last access date
Fixed. Updated to 2009 dollars, a substantial drop from December 2008. :/
The only thing I got from that source was the interview with Carl Tuggle. In response to your concern, I edited the article to connect the reference more clearly with the text, putting Carl Tuggle's name and his experiences as related in the interview.
  • Current refs 93 and 94 (LA times and Berkely Daily planet) both have more bibliographical information available. Should give author, title of the article, etc.
Fixed. Used cite journal template. Added appropriate quotes.
That link was alive when I was putting it in in December! Looks like the conspiracy theorist is hanging it up. I'll link to an archived Wayback Machine version, and add something about his website's starting and stopping dates. Using cite template with archiveurl field. Binksternet (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the diff of my changes in response to Ealdgyth. Beyond the fixes asked for, I added these things:
  • Words from Carl Tuggle, with additional text for explanation.
  • A page number (203) for one of the Bell cites.
  • Changed a few YYYY-MM-DD dates to the common US civilian style "Month day, Year" format, for consistency.
  • Added a footnoted quote from Robert L. Allen made during his Berkeley Daily Planet interview.
  • Added a footnote quote from Vogel, taken from an archived webpage he used to have up.
  • Added text about Vogel's website starting and stopping.
Hope that clears up the differences between the article as it was at the start of FAC review and as it stands now! Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What A-class review did this article pass? There are several serious WP:MSH breaches; section headings should not include "the" and should not repeat the article name. There are several instances of "the" and even a section heading "The Port Chicago disaster", which is a complete repeat of the article name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:MOSDATE#Precise language regarding use of "today" in a section heading, WP:LAYOUT regarding placement of portals and section headings, and WP:MOS#Captions (sentence fragments don't get a full stop). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your editing changes! The appear to have addressed most of the issues you raised. To tend to your further concerns I changed two headings--I believe they're fixed in a suitable way now. Say, is there a consensus on having a combination of vertical and horizontal citation templates? Binksternet (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note your changing of a heading that read "Further information" to one reading "Further reading". In this particular case, none of the listings are specifically for reading; they are audio-visual media. What's the solution? Binksternet (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Intersting, not sure on that; do whatever makes most sense I suppose, but I always thought we used Further reading even if it's other media. I'll respect whatever you decide, since it's not necessary to sweat the little stuff :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave it as "Further reading" for consistency with other articles. So... do you support Featured status for this article? Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Now that the MoS issues have been addressed, I believe that this excellent article is ready for FA. Cla68 (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support This excellent article meets the FA criteria - great work. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments I've given this a copyedit and some MOS cleanup. Some remaining prose issues:

  • "African American" is presented as a hyphenated noun and as a non-hyphenated adjective just within the lead. Not only are these two uses counter-intuitive, but the construct is used inconsistently throughout.
Fixed; the hyphen has been removed in all cases. Note that there is not complete agreement between all instances of the term on Wikipedia. We see African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954) and Category:History of African-American civil rights, both using a hyphen, yet the main page defining the term is without the hyphen: African American. Binksternet (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you'll forgive me a moment of geekitude, the examples you provided are in fact internally consistent: adjectival forms are hyphenated, but the proper noun is not. Those are logical, grammatical treatments of the term, whereas 'hyphenated proper nouns but non-hyphenated adjectives' was kinda backasswards :) In any case, I'm satisfied with non-hyphenated usage throughout. Maralia (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geekiness works for me; I embrace it. Taking a fresh look at the article, I sense that a number of instances might be described as adjectival: "...the quality of African-American petty officers...", "...until the African-American winch operator successfully tested", "...15 percent of all African-American naval casualties...", "...258 African-American sailors in the ordnance battalion continued to refuse to load ammunition...", "...filled with accounts from African-American enlisted men...", "...appeared from African-American publishers...", "...1,000 African-American men...", "...conflict between African-American sailors...", and "...43 African-American defendants..." Do you think these instances should be hyphenated? Binksternet (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. Just as with 'the sky was light blue' versus 'the light-blue sky'. Maralia (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! A handful of hyphens have been restored where appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two paragraphs of the Explosion section need some work. The section begins with past tense, diverts to past perfect, then comes back to past tense in a less-than-obvious fashion ("Division Three's 98 men were loading..."). The last sentence of the first paragraph describes the incendiary bombs in a convoluted fashion, and confusingly contains two emdashes not used in conjunction. The first sentence of the next paragraph contains an aside that is awkwardly tacked on after an emdash. I can try to help rephrase these, but didn't have any brilliant ideas yet.
Tough one! I'll work on it.
I gave that section a shot, but it's difficult to convey the change from an existing situation to a developing situation. Please, check it out and see how it works. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much better flow now. Made a few minor tweaks. Maralia (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to public pressure, the United States Navy reconvened the courts-martial board in 1945 and affirmed the guilt of the convicted men." - I don't think the latter of these two events should be ascribed as 'due to public pressure'.
I'm suggesting this simple fix: "Due to public pressure, the United States Navy reconvened the courts-martial board in 1945; the court affirmed the guilt of the convicted men." Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No enlisted man stationed at Port Chicago ever received formal training in the handling and loading of explosives into ships." - this is a bit hyperbolic; can we at least say had ever received?
I'm incorporating your suggestion. Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • " were taken under guard to a barge built to accommodate 75 men to be held there as a temporary military prison, or "brig"." - awkward; could use rephrasing.
I divided this bit into two sentences: "...taken under guard and ordered onto a barge. The barge, built to accommodate 75 men, was to serve as a temporary military prison, or "brig"." Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough, thus struck—but a bit weak now with "a barge. The barge". Will fix if inspiration strikes. Maralia (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing the second "The barge" into "This unlocked working vessel". Binksternet (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't hate me, but I still don't like it. How about "These men were taken under guard to a barge which was used as a temporary military prison or "brig", despite having been built to accommodate only 75 men." I like that better, unless it puts undue emphasis on the latter phrase. Maralia (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good phrasing. I'm putting that in. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Veltmann pointed out that Small's brief four- or five-minute speech to the men on the barge was fulfilling the duty to maintain order that had been placed on him by his superiors." - awkward phrasing, and 'pointed out' is probably not a good choice of verb here as he was in fact arguing that this was the case.
I'm going to try this fix: "Veltmann argued that Small's brief four- or five-minute speech to the men on the barge was given in the performance of his duty to maintain order, a duty placed upon him by his superiors." Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really interesting article, and I look forward to supporting it soon. Maralia (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images checked and are okay. 8 images, most are public domain from US navy. I switched the image of marshall to one from 1957 as I'm not sure we can justify fair-use given we have from 1957. the 1936 image is clearer, maybe worth seeing if it is public domain as it is from library of congress, though it looks like Binksternet has researched this area already, Tom B (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That 1936 image of Marshall was taken by NAACP. I imagine that they, being a group of lawyers, would have retained some rights to it, but I don't know. I wanted a picture of Marshall taken before or shortly after 1944 and I thought this 1936 one looked good. The moment in his life when it was taken was when he started working with NAACP, the group that sent him to check out the mutiny trial, which was my basis for non-free fair use of an historic image. Is there another rationale that would be firmer?
The Smithsonian's copyright permission page says that fair use is permitted, with some restrictions. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of images, there's one of the trial itself which I wanted to use but was unsure whether it had been taken by a Navy photographer or by one of the many newspaper photographers present. Anybody have a clue? Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Just one quibble, that doesn't detract from my willingness to support.
    • Quality: "They and their men sometimes adopted an antagonistic relationship." Perhaps "They and their men sometimes held an antagonistic relationship." or maybe "suffered from an antagonistic..."
How about "sometimes struck an antagonistic relationship"? Binksternet (talk) 06:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That works. "Adopted" was just odd, but I couldn't think of something much better. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:01, 17 March 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 SandyGeorgia 21:34, 15 March 2009 [10].

Museum of Bad Art

Nominator(s): Moni3 (talk), User:Ferrylodge, User:Found5dollar, User:Kafka Liz, User:Ceoil, User:Jbmurray, User:LeadSongDog, User:Ceranthor

As an artist, this place has captured my imagination, both in the intellectual understanding of beauty and the fear that one of my pieces will show up here someday. This article has gone through a complete rewrite in the past week, and in the interest of transparency it is for the main page on April 1. This is a real place, evidenced by the all the sources. The article reflects the "wtf"? tone of the sources that have reported on it since 1994, as well as the sincere discussion on what is considered beautiful, and why museums and galleries are required to tell people what kind of art should be valued. I appreciate the time you take to read it and give your opinions. Ealdgyth, I must say for your edification, this is the first article I have ever written where I sought a citation from The National Enquirer. How unfortunate that I ended up not needing it. Moni3 (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There are three left-aligned images directly below subheadings in contravention of WP:MOSIMAGE. I'm not enough a MOS-guru to know whether such contraventions are historically considered a reason to fail a FAC, but I thought I should note it. A quick scan reveals some remaining prose issues, but I'll try a more thorough review later. Seems promising overall, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm posting issues here as I find them:
  • "Its permanent collection includes 500 pieces of art "Too Bad to be Ignored"," I'm not clear on why the motto is capitalized, especially since the museum itself doesn't seem to capitalize it.
  • "MOBA has been mentioned in dozens of off-the-beaten-path guides to Boston, featured in international newspapers and magazines, and has inspired several other collections throughout the world that set out to rival its own visual atrocities." Faulty parallelism.

More later (this review is likely to be pretty haphazard, I'm afriad). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On images:
  • To cut the website off the logo would be to alter the logo, wouldn't it? I am not sure we should do that since it is a non-free image.
  • On the placement of left sided images, if an oppose is going to be based on left-sided images, I'll shift them all right, but articles with images all shifted right look like they're about to tip off the side of the monitor.
  • All of the museum's images have been sent to permissions. I am waiting for OTRS tickets on all of them. --Moni3 (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to throw a spanner into the works here, but is everybody (museum included) clear on the copyrights of the atrocious artworks? File:Lucyflowers.jpg was painted in ~1970 by an unknown painter. If he or she turns up in court to assert copyright over the work (with proof), I would think the person has a fair case. Picking the art from the rubbish does not take away the copyright from the artist (just like purchasing the work) unless an agreement was reached between the two to transfer the rights. File:Eileen by R Anglo Le.jpg would probably be a concern as well. Jappalang (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spanner thrown, despite your best intentions. I wrote to Michael Frank and Louise Reilly Sacco and asked them specifically: do you have copyrights to distribute these images? If so, can I have your permission to use them in the article? Sacco's response, emailed to me on March 2: "Yes, we own the rights to our images and we are releasing them to Wikipedia." --Moni3 (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I checked the OTRS tickets and everything seems fine. The question of whether they have copyright is not our issue if they assert that they do indeed own the copyright, so it's not a worry for us (could be for them :P). --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- External links and dabs (found using the checker tools), and ref formatting (found using WP:REFTOOLS) are all up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 02:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support this article on a museum that I have long known and (from afar) enjoyed. But a worrying number of flaws for an article praised by so many: (1) no consistency in capitalization for sources cited (I've gone for "up" style), (2) "flora" treated as singular (fixed), (3) a painting in "tempura" (a lovely idea, but since there was no "[sic]" or hint of nutritional value, taken as a typo for "tempera" and fixed accordingly). If I found all these oddities (and an obvious repetition) within ten minutes, I think a more careful copyeditor will probably find more. Morenoodles (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On tempera, which is the most embarrassing faux pas - it's from MOBA's website. The painting's described as "Tempura and acrylic on canvas". That could go either way. I read a source that said a guy sent in a painting made partly out of goose poop. It was rejected, of all crimes. Though it is entirely possible that some of the painting may be made out of fried batter, it's probably safe to transform that into "tempera". --Moni3 (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "tempura" is likely a typo on the site; the full image on the site shows that the artist has written "tempera" in the whitespace on the right side of the canvas. Jappalang (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know. It also says "Bone Juggling Dog in Hula Skirk" in writing. User:Yomangan changed it to "Juggling Dog in Hula Skirt" per the text on the source site. I have the book that lists it as "Bone Juggling Dog in Hula Skirt". So, ah. You know... reliable sources rule. And in the end, we're fussing about a painting that shows a wiener dog juggling bones while wearing a hula skirt. --Moni3 (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geese? Why geese? Morenoodles (talk) 05:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because he was painting geese as a subject with goose poop. Get it? The symbolism? Me neither. In the end, you paid $400 for goose poop to hang on your wall. --Moni3 (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
High concept art with a concept too high (or anyway too odoriferous) to be ignored. That's beautiful. Morenoodles (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because I was thinking of the Guggenheim. Can't people make museums that begin with different letters of the alphabet for God's sake?? No, I'm mortified. That was my mistake. --Moni3 (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was all my fault. Moni3 was relying on proofreading and I let her down. I'm so sorry. I assumed that Getty was rich enough to have branches everywhere.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(after EC) Ah, that explains it. I was wondering why would patrons find a large museum full of "art from ancient Greece, Rome, and Etruria" to be "equally hilarious" as the MOBA--boring perhaps, but not funny. Matthew Barney's Vaseline sculptures at the Guggenheim, on the other hand, well.... I'll bite my tongue. After all, if he's good enough for Björk....--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so the quote was referring to the Getty? Maybe I'd have to see that place for myself.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments regarding images:
    • Jappalang made an astute point above and I've actually been lurking waiting to see whether anyone would pick up on the problem of claiming rights to work fished out of a rubbish bin. While I think the museum is probably mistaken in its belief that it owns copyright (to "Lucy", anyway), the OTRS email is indeed explicit in its declaration of ownership and, as such, the "verifiability, not truth" philosophy of which I am so genuinely fond seems to apply and resolve policy issues. Philosophical issues may be another matter.
    • File:Moba Logo.jpg - While I realise logos tend to get a "free pass" to inclusion, time and care should still be taken to write a specific purpose. The purpose statement of "The image is used to identify the organization Newbury Comics" seems to suggest a mechanical copy and paste and is, at the least, inappropriate for this image. Also, to make a similar point as Herr Fuchs, the web address does not appear to be part of the actual logo (e.g. not present on this placard or, for that matter, on the MOBA website). Rather, it appears to have been an addition for certain merchandise (e.g. the coffee mug.) Being non-free does not preclude alteration (consider, for example, all of the non-free images that are scaled down - i.e. altered - by Wikipedians to satisfy NFCC#3B). Its removal, I think, would improve aesthetics (it would also be nice to convert to a .png with a transparent background) and remove redundancy with the address already present in the infobox, to say nothing of likely being a more accurate representation of the logo. Эlcobbola talk 16:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, except for transparent background (don't know how).Ferrylodge (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Laser Brain and Ferrylodge. The transparency is, obviously, nothing essential or mandatory. If no one beats me to it, I can do the transparency later today (laptop doesn't have Photoshop). Эlcobbola talk 17:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More Fat Man feedback:
  • Don't hate me, but I was almost ready to slap one of thos obnoxious [who?] templates after seeing the article passively assert twice (once in the lead section and once in the "Collection standards" section) that some people claim the museum is anti-art. I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass, but is anyone really saying that? I checked the NYT source, and it appears that curator Mr. Wilson thinks that "there are people who have frowned on us and said we're taking these poor innocent people's work and twisting it". Do we have any direct sources or quotes from those who have criticized the museum in this fashion? I'm just sayin'... it would make for a stronger, more balanced article if we did.
  • Minor gripe with the "Use in academic research" section: Of the two studies described, the former is far more interesting, yet treated in far less detail than the latter. We say that "researchers tested the consistency of responses between people asked to make 'gut' judgments versus those who made conscious well-thought responses". "Gut judgments" and "responses" about what, exactly? The quality and merit of the paintings? The content and iconography of the pieces? Tell us a bit more--this sounds like a great experiment! The other study, IMO, is less interesting.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From The Chicago Tribune: "...criticism has come from a few gallery and art-school types who complain that MOBA ridicules artists and art history". Headline in The Ottawa Citizen: "Bad Art Finds a Good Home at this Anti-Museum". Carey Goldberg's article from the NYT: "...the museum's founders emphasize that they are not in anyway anti-art or anti-artists - quite the opposite. 'There are people who have frowned on us and said we're taking these poor innocent people's work and twisting it,' Mr. Wilson said, 'and that's not what we're about. We're celebrating the artist.'" --Moni3 (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the article on unconscious thought is interesting, and I wish the article discussed its methods in more detail, but it does not. The MOBA v MoMA experiment is one listed among a dozen that illustrate the differences between gut judgments and conscious thought. It does not say what aspect of the art participants were asked to evaluate: were they asking them to identify which pieces are "good"? Or "beautiful"? Or which one came from which museum? It doesn't say. I just reread it 3 times hoping to glean some more info from it. --Moni3 (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to be the study in question. The study's also been mentioned elsewhere.[11][12][13] It seems to be saying that those who reasoned in conscious thought were neither accurate nor consistent about whether a piece was from MoMA as opposed to MOBA.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last article makes that connection, but that's what I would consider WP:SYNTH because the original primary source does not say that explicitly. Perhaps that is sloppy writing, and the authors did not expect it to be used on an article about MOBA. --Moni3 (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like to used synthesized info. I have already been asked to correct inaccuracies from reliable sources that did sloppy reporting, or whatever is the result of using 50 newspapers. I would like to stick to the original article. Well done with the twang. --Moni3 (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. It's kind of interestingly bizarre that a psychological study involving MOBA paintings is being used to suggest how to sell a car and "rescue America’s auto manufacturers." :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support an article too good to be ignored about "art too bad to be ignored" WereSpielChequers 20:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I went through the article just now, but there wasn't much to do in terms of copy-editing. Please check what I did so this gem can shine as brightly as possible on April 1. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - But of course I have no taste. LeadSongDog (talk) 05:48, 15 March 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 SandyGeorgia 21:34, 15 March 2009 [14].

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings

Nominator(s): Figureskatingfan
previous FAC (20:53, 11 July 2008)

I am nominating this article because it fulfills all the criteria for becoming a featured article. The 40th anniversary of the book's publication is this year, and it would be a great way for the Wikipedia community to honor Maya Angelou, the author of the book. This is also the first step in the establishment of a Maya Angelou featured topic. The team of editors (myself, Scartol, and Awadewit have worked really hard in getting this article ready for FAC. Moni3 has also given it a solid review. The article has come a long way since its last FAC. I also believe that this article has the potential to be a valuable resource for students and readers of Angelou's works. The sources used are excellent. It is truly an example of one of Wikipedia's best articles. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Re: "Although poet Hilton Als considers Caged Bird an important contribution to the increase of black feminist writings in the 1970s...". I've searched multiple references to Hilton Als and he is described as a journalist, an essayist, a writer and a critic, but I found no references that refer to him as a poet. Elsewhere, this article describes him as an "author" and a "writer". Is it correct to call him a poet, too? Also, Hilton Als is red-linked in the article, which is OK considering he's likely to be notable enough for a future article, but his name is used in the article twice before the red-link. The first usage should be the designated red-link. -- Michael Devore (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I red-linked the first mention of Als, where he's called a "writer". Then I changed all other mentions to him to "Als". The instance you mention was actually the last time he's named in the article, which is now fixed. Thanks for the catch. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (Note: I reviewed this article, copyedited it, and gave general advice on the FAC process to Figureskatingfan.) This article is based on a solid foundation of research, which covers both the academic material on Caged Bird (of which there is less than one might expect) and some of the popular media coverage. From these materials, Figureskatingfan has constructed a comprehensive article that covers the composition, publication, and reception of the text as well as its themes and styles. Caged Bird is a difficult text to explain, as it is both autobiography and fiction, but I believe that this article clearly articulates the plot and its meanings to a reader who hasn't read the book (as I have not - gasp!). It is also well-illustrated and all of its images meet the requirements of our image policies. Awadewit (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes (I noticed NPR and IMBD, but there might be others)
Done, and thank you. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.
  • Support. I reviewed it, my comments are on the talk page. Well done. I think Wikipedia is ready to initiate another novel into its very small FA novel ranks. --Moni3 (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I was involved in the middle stages of this article's development, and I've been consistently impressed with Figureskatingfan's dedication to it. This article has benefited greatly from her tireless devotion and attention, and I'm very happy to see the quality research and prose style that has resulted. Scartol • Tok 15:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comments. This is a great read, thank you. Will you be working on her other autobiographies? I note that not all of them even have articles.
You're welcome, very glad to oblige. The answer to your question is, yes. My long-term WP goal is to not only create articles on all of Dr. Angelou's autobiographies, as I have already done with Gather Together in My Name, but to eventually create a MA-featured topic. Of course, that means that I have to read them. Then we can use the information in those books to improve her bio page, which is currently in GAC. (Not my idea;it was nominated by another editor. I understand it's kinda dumb to have two noms going at the same time.) I ordered MA's third autobiography, Singin' and Dancin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas, and it arrived just this week! But it's, like I said, a long-term project, especially since it seems I'm the only one on the project willing to take it on. Not that I mind; it'll be fun! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're crazy to take on a FT with so many books to read. I would never do something so crazy. Scartol • Tok 04:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now you're just bragging! And in French, no less! ;) --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Critics have often judged Angelou's subsequent autobiographies "in light of the first", with Caged Bird receiving the highest praise." Please revise to eliminate the "with" connector and noun +ing construction. I played with a bit but couldn't settle on anything.
Changed to: "...and Caged Bird generally receives the highest praise." Scartol • Tok 22:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed a couple instances of "in order to" to "to" except where clarity might suffer. This is subjective so feel free to revert me.
    • I hate to say it, but I've been spoiled by those navigation boxes people place at the footer of some articles. Here's why: When I was done reading, I immediately wanted to find a list of her other autobiographies. There is no direct access to that list (that I saw) from this article. I had to click to her article, then click another link to get to Works of Maya Angelou. Can you add the latter to a See also heading? Or better yet, see the type of collapsible box at the bottom of Crime and Punishment.
I'll be happy to make one of these. Gimme a day or two. Scartol • Tok 22:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I lied. It's been created and added. (I made it auto-collapse so as to be less obtrusive.) Scartol • Tok 22:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That looks really nice, thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, look, someone has created a stub! :) Awadewit (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we've got two stubs now. Behold the mighty power of template creation! Scartol • Tok 16:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Laser brain (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical review

  • Dabs and external links are up to speed using the checker tools.
Ref formatting
  • There are instances of book refs which have multiple pages, which should be formatted as "pp." not p.
Fixed, I'm pretty sure. This could use an extra set of eyes to make sure.
I'm pretty sure you got it.--₮RUCӨ 21:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following refs are duplicated, and appear in the ref section as such, use a ref name instead.
  • Smith, p. 54
  • Moore, p. 56
Done and done. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--₮RUCӨ 02:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • "but the book is best characterized as an autobiography," I was a bit surprised to see this wording ("best characterized") in the lead; if the critical consensus is that it's an autobiography, I think it might be best to use a more specific wording ("prevailing critical view" or the like). The phrase also prompted me to look for a discussion on the autobiography v. autobiographical fiction debate in the Style and genre section, and an argument as to why the former was "best", but I didn't see one clearly laid out.
Okay, I changed the wording to satisfy your first request, but I'm not sure I agree with your second one. The second paragraph in the "Style" section does, I believe, adequately explain why Caged Bird is an autobiography, and why there's a controversy about it. It uses fiction-like elements, not just from novels, but from slave narratives. It also has a unique voice different than most autobiographies. This is stated in the text. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I got a different impression when reading that paragraph. The paragraph seemed mainly to concentrate on why scholars might classify it as autobiographical fiction—that while it features the first-person narrative voice, it also contains elements of fiction, two distinct voices, and the first-person singular representing the first-person plural. I don't see a summary of any scholarly arguments that counter these views. After reading the paragraph, and indeed the entire section, I find myself asking why Caged is an autobiography and not autobiographical fiction. The section seems to state that it's an autobiography as fact without really delving into the arguments of critics who believe this (for example, the second sentence: "Although Caged Bird is an autobiography, critic Mary Jane..."); what do they have to say about the points made by those on the other side of this debate? Note that I have no opinion as to the merits of either side's argument, and I trust your editorial judgment when you say that it is an autobiography; however, as a layman on this subject, I was hoping to see some more words devoted to explaining the debate and why it's an autobiography, rather than just giving "it is an autobiography" as fact and leaving it there. BuddingJournalist 06:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see your point, so I pulled out my Lupton and used it to clarify the classification, and to summarize her arguments for Caged Bird being an autobiography. I also used Dr. Angelou's own words, in the Tate interview, that classify it that way. I figure if that's the way the author classifies it, that's the way it should be classified. I hope that's satisfactory.--Figureskatingfan (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is clearer now in the article. BuddingJournalist
    • "Angelou reports that maintaining this distinction is "damned difficult", but "very necessary"." I don't think she is referring to the two voices in the book here. In the interview where this is taken from, she seems to be referring to the act of distancing herself from the Maya character. BuddingJournalist 15:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm not sure I understand your distinction. The difficulty here is that Dr. Angelou's being somewhat dissociative in her writing. She's both the Maya character and the adult who's writing about her. In order to utilize the adult writer voice, she must distance herself, the writer, from the child. So I'm not really sure what you're asking me to do, or how to fulfill your concern. Unfortunately, no one's really written anything about the connection between the dissociative nature of this book and how many rape victims dissociate to cope with their trauma. That makes it really hard to describe in this article. There were times when other editors asked, "Now who are we talking about here"? and we worked at making it as clear as we could. There needed to be a distinction between the Maya character and the writer, and it was damned difficult. The popular media has a great deal of trouble with it. As someone in the mental health field, though, I find this whole thing very interesting. BJ, if you want to take a crack at better describing it, have a try. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should have hedged a bit more in my original comment—I meant that I'm not entirely sure that her response in the interview ("It's damned difficult for me to preserve this distancing. But it's very necessary.") was about the struggle to draw a distinction between the two voices in the novel (as suggested by what's in the article...maybe I'm reading this wrong), but rather maintaining a personal distance from the Maya character ("Whenever I speak about the books, I always think in terms of the Maya character. When I wrote the teleplay of [Caged], I would refer to the Maya character so as not to mean me."). But perhaps I'm wrong. BuddingJournalist 06:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a matter of interpretation. The use of the two voices causes a personal distance, which enables her to write about what's happened. To compromise, I added the phrase, "... in order to distance herself from the story" to the end of the sentence in question. Let me know what you think. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See if my edit makes sense. BuddingJournalist 04:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's better, thanks. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Dude, I just reviewed Maya Angelou for GAC (currently on hold), and that got me wondering how this article was doing, since Scartol asked me a while ago if I could re-review it, and I never got around to it because I'm a dweeb with no free time and a goldfish's capacity for memories, and dude! How things have changed since this first showed up at FAC a year ago! Fascinating read, very well done, guys. In particular I like the ref-links to individual pages at Google Books -- great idea, I can't believe I hadn't thought of it before. Overall excellent article, and I hope Angelou's article follows suit in time... once my concerns have been addressed, that is. ;) María (habla conmigo) 20:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In particular I like the ref-links to individual pages at Google Books" Indeed! Quite helpful, and hopefully the start of a trend. BuddingJournalist 04:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't take the credit for this one! The problem is, though, I can't remember who taught it to me. Like Maria, I also have the memory of a goldfish. I want to say, though, that it was someone who's helped edit Stanford Memorial Church, but I wasn't able to find any evidence of it. I have to admit, though, that it's a pain to implement. That might be a really good bot for someone to create. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By this token, I went through the article's references and made sure every page reference that could be linked is. Yes, it was a pain. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I made a couple very tiny tweaks. One remaining sentence could use a fix for redundancy ("The public library is a refuge...and it becomes a "quiet refuge" from the chaos of her life."). Altogether this is very well done. Extra bonus points for choosing a topic so wildly disparate from your first FA :) Maralia (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it by deleting the last phrase of that sentence: "The public library is a "quiet refuge" to which Maya retreats when she experiences crisis". And thanks. The above mentioned "MemChu" article will probably be my next FA, and that's pretty different from this one and my first, The Wiggles. And my one and only FL, List of people with hepatitis C. ;) --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:37, 11 March 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 SandyGeorgia 21:34, 15 March 2009 [15].

Banker horse

Nominator(s): Yohmom (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because it appears to have met FA criteria. Yohmom (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I've helped a bit with finding sources in the past. Also, this [16] source is by a noted equine writer and vet, so it qualifies under the SPS guidelines. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tech. review from Truco (talk · contribs)

Dabs (toolbox)
  • Check out fine.
External links (toolbox)
  • There is a dead link that was just found today.
Fixed.--Yohmom (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...are found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 00:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS)
  • The following refs are duplicated, they should have a ref name instead.
Fixed.--Yohmom (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...are found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 00:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This is a regretful oppose, because I enjoyed the article when I read it at peer review, ansd saw little wrong with it. However I, and another reviewer, both commented that the lead did not summarise the whole article, as required by FA criterion 2(a). These comments are merely marked in the review "not done", with no explanation of the decision to ignore them. Since the lead at present clearly does not summarise the whole article, I feel I have no choice but to register an oppose. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns in the peer review are marked as "not done" because I had not finished addressing the concerns at the time the review was archived. They certainly were not ignored. Information has been added since the concerns were posted; however, please feel free to point the additional areas that you feel are lacking in the lead. --Yohmom (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the breed history summary in the lead should at least mention the non-Spanish theory related to Grenville. The Land use controversies section doesn't appear to be mentioned in the lead. Since the Management and adoption section is so significant in the article, I would expect this importance to be reflected in the lead, with mention of such management problems as the Shackleford infection. These are relatively easy matters to fix, and I look forward to striking my oppose as soon as possible. Brianboulton (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any comment about taxonomy and classification. I suppose that Bankers are a type of Equus ferus caballus? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few words to the first sentence, and I wouod think that that would take away any possible confusion on this, as I can see that if you are not familiar with horse breeds, it could be equally a horse species. Many people know what a German Sheppard is, but how many people know what Samoyed is. So, lets clarify it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a brief description of behavior: grazing and water supply. Do the Bankers hang out in herds? What happens if people approach the feral horses? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mating habits? Gestation? Time to maturity? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick comment, as I contributed some help and thus cannot be an evaluator on the article, but nonetheless, WikiProject Equine wholeheartedly supports this effort. Montanabw(talk) 04:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks Montanabw. Still, some extra information about behavior would be helpful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be relevant the information would have to be specific to Bankers, not generic to horses. So far as I can tell specific behavioural characteristics (like gait) are already covered in adequate detail. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in that case I support. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - All images have adequate descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 18:50, 15 March 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 SandyGeorgia 21:34, 15 March 2009 [17].

Byzantine navy

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

This article already underwent a failed FAC in October-November 2008. Since then, it has been greatly expanded and generally rewritten with far more details, although the general outline has remained the same. I have also managed to get access to the most up-to-date and comprehensive scholarly book on the subject, the Age of the Dromon, and am confident that the information included is correct, and reflects the current scholarly views. To prospective reviewers: please be as thorough as you can, and thanks in advance! Constantine ✍ 19:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support. Just like I supported the previous nomination, I will reiterate that this is a truly remarkable article well deserving of featured status. Its excellence lies not only in the should I say perfect referencing using works issued by the world's leading university publishers and prominent authors in the field, but also in the very engaging and captivating prose. Cplakidas' writing is something that I really admire, probably because it has always been difficult for me, as a non-native speaker of English, to reach such heights. The article is well-structured, appropriately illustrated, accurate and unbiased in its presentation. I found it particularly difficult to find even the slightest flaw, but I did detect one occasion of the deprecated date linking ("20 April 1453"). And what's of more importance, I believe the article should be more consistent in its usage of original Byzantine family names and not Latinizations (per the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium's conventions), e.g. Anna Komnene and not Comnena, Constantine Porphyrogennetos and not Porphyrogenitus, Euphemios and not Euphemius, Romanos Lekapenos and not Romanus Lecapenus (in the case of the latter two, both variants have been used in the article, which is inconsistent). However, I don't consider these to be shortcomings of enough significance to hold off my support, especially because I'm very confident that Cplakidas will be quick to rectify these. Wikipedia is in dire need of such impressive encyclopedic content and one should be able to recognize what is an actual flaw and what is just a minor issue that can easily be solved, and thus no reason to delay your support, I believe.
    P.S. By the way, any clue as to why the previous nomination failed? I did not see any objections and any clearly-specified points that remained unaddressed. Does a nomination have to gather a specific number of support votes? Todor→Bozhinov 20:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow! Thanks for such a ringing endorsement. I shall try and live up to your comments! As for the failure of the previous nomination, I assume that, based on FAC rules, the supervisors deemed there was not enough support. Only you actually voted in favour, and Johnbod suggested that it needed a thorough copyediting. I tried to find someone to do it, but no one really responded, and two days later, the nomination was closed. Lack of interest by reviewers can really kill a FAC. Let's hope this time is the lucky one! Thanks again and best regards, Constantine ✍ 20:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Ref formatting (using WP:REFTOOLS)
  • The following ref(s) are spelled out more than once, a ref name should be used instead.
  • Treadgold (1995), p. 67
  • I. Heath (1995), p. 17
  • Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), p. 113
  • Haldon (1999), p. 77
  • Treadgold (1997), p. 145
  • Treadgold (1997), p. 277
  • Treadgold (1997), p. 576
  • Pryor (2003), p. 84
  • The following ref names are given to different references, that needs to be fixed accordingly.
  • TreadgoldB67
  • Heath17
  • Dromon113
  • Tread145
  • Tread277
  • Tread576
  • Pryor84
Dabs (using Dabs checker tool)
  • Need to be fixed.
External links (using External links checker tool)
  • Sorry, but I mainly only review articles for their ref formatting, dabs, and dead external links. But your dabs and ref formatting is found up to speed as well.--₮RUCӨ 22:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments
"Sources and bibliography" ?
Pictures using thumb and fixed pic size attributes. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first one is because some of the listed works have not been actually used as sources, but more as a general reading. I'll change it simply to "sources". As for the second, I don't understand what you mean. Constantine ✍ 07:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You use two different styles for defining the sizes of images. Please use only one, thumbs or fixed image size. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Constantine ✍ 13:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To simply change the heading "Sources and bibliography" to "Sources," as you have now done, is a bit misleading. See these sections of Wikipedia:Layout. You need to differentiate between "works actually used as sources" and those offered as "general reading". Please make a new section, "Further reading," below "Sources," and migrate the general reading to it. Bishonen | talk 10:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Futher comment. This article uses the {{Infobox War Faction}} template, the {{Infobox Military Unit}} would be more appropriate. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, if I remember correctly, this had come up at some earlier point. I chose {{Infobox War Faction}} over {tl|Infobox Military Unit}} because it had some extra fields like "Allies" and "Opponents", "Area of operations" etc. Personally, I am quite happy with it. If however it is absolutely necessary, I'll change it. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 13:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The allies and opponents of the Navy are those of the Byzantine Empire itself - unless the Navy was in civil war/extreme infighting with the Army I wouldn't use faction template.GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but not quite (the maritime allies and opponents of the Byzantines were fewer than their land counterparts, for one). I tried applying the {{Infobox National Military}}, but it doesn't have the fields I want, and, although I know that the policy is to use {{Infobox Military Unit}} for organized formations, it is more suitable for modern units rather than whole medieval armies. I cannot really put the Crusades or the Byzantine-Arab Wars, which were centuries-long processes, under "Engagements", there is no "area of operations", no space to mention the emperor as commander-in-chief and the droungarios and the megas doux as effective commanders, etc. Since to the reader, it makes no difference, I really feel we should leave it. I am sorry if I appear obstinate, but I really think the present box just summarizes the main points of the article better, which after all is the purpose of an infobox. Constantine ✍ 22:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose
  • Violates NPOV. Gardiner is used exclusively to push the theses that the Arabs had no naval tradition and copied all. Medieval warfare source book says otherwise and mentions the lot of novelities introduced to naval warfare by technology transfer from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean. The Arabian peninsula did in actual fact have a seagoing tradition. But I know that it's hard to tell the difference between a Byzantine and a Muslim ship from the remains, even more so for warships.
  • The ships section is incomplete. The pamphylia needs to be explained and the later highboarded warships.
  • "Like their Roman predecessors, Byzantine and Muslim ships were equipped with small catapults (mangana) and ballistae (toxoballistrai) that launched stones, arrows, javelins, pots of Greek fire or other incendiary liquids, caltrops (triboloi) and even containers full of asbestos or, as Emperor Leo VI somewhat implausibly suggests, scorpions and snakes." I don't believe this about asbestos because it's no instant killer. Has the scribe made an error? You quote this directly from the source, please check a reliable secondary work on that.
  • "Burning fiercely, it could stay ablaze even underwater for a short period. Despite the somewhat exaggerated accounts of Byzantine writers, it was by no means a "wonder weapon", and could not avert some serious defeats." I don't believe that. The earliest sources on saltpetre are Muslim and date centuries after the introduction of Greek fire. Please source how it could burn under water without oxygen or make it very clear that you only echo a highly suspicious opinion. Your sources possibly confused heating with burning because quicklime does heat up when reacting with water and as a result can create steam. This combined with a liquid flammable substance leads to a thermobaric bomb.
  • Mention the countermeasures against Greek fire.Wandalstouring (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At last a comment on the actual content... On point 1), could you provide some more details on the book, so that I can check it? Also, what both the Gradiner book and Pryor make clear is that there was a shared maritime experience, at least in the Mediterranean, because the Arabs did use much of the existing naval infrastructure and manpower and I think that is what I have stated. There is no explicit statement to the effect that they had no naval expertise at all, or that their ships were copycat Byzantine designs. The fact however that both Arabs and Byzantines often used similar terminology and ship names does imply that at least some designs were common to both, or at least very similar. I'll try to modify the effect of the relevant statements, nevertheless. On point 2), Pryor makes clear that there is not much info on the pamphylos, and there is not much to find on it even in as massive book as the Age of the Dromon. I'll try to include whatever else I can find, but the construction characteristics of Byzantine ships in general are very obscure. And, what exactly do you mean by "highboarded warships"? On point 3), you're right, lime was meant, though it was not intended as a killer: Leo says that when the jars are broken, the smoke would choke and confuse the defenders. On point 4), the "burning underwater" is a leftover from very early versions of the article. Somehow it slipped by. As for point 5), what exactly do you mean by "countermeasures"? The simplest and most effective countermeasure was not getting too close (ca. 10-20 yards) to the prow of a siphon-equipped Byzantine warship. Constantine ✍ 12:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1)Try David Nicolle, Medieval warfare source book/2 ISBN 1-85409-307-X
It's a summary that points you to other detailed works. The transfer of maritime technology between the Byzantines and the Muslims should be highlighted as not only a one-sided affair.
I found Nicolle's account a rather partial one. Additionall,y he is definitely no expert on naval warfare, but more of a scholar with a broad scope, and as such often uninformed in detail, especially concerning the history of technology. Generally, it should not be overlooked that the early Arabs did not create a new navy, but stepped in the footsteps of the existing millenia-old maritime Mediterranean tradition, with their navy manned by Copts and other Christians. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the Arab impact on Mediterranean sea-faring (with a special view to the lateen sail, before Lionel Casson long attributed to the Arabs):

The lateen sail therefore predates the Muslim invasions of the Mediterranean shores, but this does not prove that some Arabs did not already have it. However, their maritime role before then was so confined that they seem unlikely agents for either its invention or its diffusion. Although Arabs were engaged in east African trade in the first century a.d., and others in the region of the Persian Gulf were reported to be seafarers in the third century, these were probably engaged in local navigation only. As late as the sixth century, when trade to Sri Lanka and beyond was conducted by Persian-speaking mariners, there is no mention of Arabs, who were clearly “playing no noteworthy part on the high seas.”30 Such Arabs as were mariners were south Arabians; the center of affairs in Arabian history abruptly swung to the northern Arabians on the eve of the Muslim outburst, and these people were emphatically not seafarers.31 Thus, when strategic opportunism impelled the Arabs to venture onto Mediterranean waters, they did so in Byzantine-style galleys, built and manned by Copts of Alexandria in their accustomed fashion, and in this way they won the great naval victory of Dhat al-Sawari in 655.32 Hourani assumes that the sails (if any) used by these galleys were square, on the presumption that the lateen was unknown in the Mediterranean for another two centuries. As Casson and others have since shown, however, the lateen was already well established as the auxiliary motive power for the Byzantine dromones. It follows that the Arabs learned their naval craft from the Copts and acquired the lateen sail in the same way. Copts, indeed, continued to supply the bulk of naval personnel for the Arabs in the Mediterranean for centuries.

I.C. Campbell: „The Lateen Sail in World History”, Journal of World History, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1995), pp. 1-23 (9-10) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amen? Sorry, but it's only one opinion. Feel free to add this source's statement to the article, however, you'll have to live with conflicting views not much older. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2) OK, I've always been wondering about that ship type. It might be a good idea to state that on some ship types information is rare.
High boarded ships of Galleass type were introduced in the very late Byzantine navy, but without guns, rather the high ground gave a decisive advantage in boarding. I saw picture of such ships as part of the Byzantine navy. It will take me some time to remember where.
    • 3)OK
    • 4)Change it, saltpetre was used by the Muslims for their Greek fire.(see for references)
    • 5)Wool soaked in vinegar was a popular countermeasure. Try Konstantin Nossov, Ancient and Medieval Siege Weapons (2006).
    • 6)I've been thinking about it and I'm really dissatisfied with your article structure. You have this extremely long section about the history of the navy that tells who when where rebelled and so on. After several sections it's totally boring. I suggest to split the history in three main phases and give for each phase history, structure, ship types, weapons and enemies(you should introduce their capabilities and the type of threat) and then move on to the next. These phases can be early period, middle period and late period as you have in the organization of the navy. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1)I'll check it if I can find it.
      • 2)Hmmm, I don't really know what to add on this subject. The Byzantines used mostly Western designs from the 12th century onwards, but in small numbers (except for the period of Michael VIII). It would be rather superfluous to describe the galeass in this article, when only a few examples of it must have been ever used by the Byzantines! The focus should be on the indigenous and distinctly Byzantine ship types. If you can find any concrete source however, please let me know.
      • 4)I've got some of John Haldon's notes on this issue. I'll go through them before making any changes.
      • 5)Ah, that's what you mean. OK, it'll be added.
      • 6)I have only been following the structure that seems prevalent in relevant books. I know the history section is very long and probably boring, but it's a summary of a thousand-year history. Only if I reduce it to the barest essentials can it be less "boring", and then the article will lose much of its essence. The ebb and tide of Byzantine fortunes, which was different in the different theaters, will simply vanish and become a bullet-list. If you have any particular areas were you think I go into too much detail, please tell me so. As for your phase proposal, I have thought of something similar before. My one objection is that the three sections would be receive very unequal treatment, owing to the scarcity of good information on the early and late phases. But I'll think on it. Constantine ✍ 14:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • 6) I've drafted a new structure here. The first section is rather short, but there didn't happen a lot compared to the other sections. The other two are of equal length and do cover threats, adaption and history of the navy. I've added a chapter on the Italian allies for the late navy. In brackets are suggestions for the content. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Points 4) and 5) taken care of, I think. As for point 1), I tried to clarify it, but sadly, I I can't find Nicolle's book either online or in any local library (bear in mind, I live in Greece). Buying it is out of the question right now, so if you want to add anything from it, be my guest. As for 6), the structure is interesting. One quibble: section 4 would, almost in its entirety, again refer to the middle period, not the one before or after. I intend to try setting up a restructured version in a sandbox tomorrow. Constantine ✍ 22:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll see when I can borrow Nicolle again or contact someone who has the book. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've done a very rough preliminary restructuring based on your proposal, and after considering it and moving the pieces around in my mind a bit, I don't really like it. One of the good things in the current article, as I've been told by several other editors, is its clean structure by thematic sections. If we were to adopt a chronological criterion as the primary division, it would mess this up. Since one of the main tenets of this article is to present the development of the Byzantine navy, or, more accurately, "the naval forces of the B.E.", as a single continuous story coterminous with the Byzantine Empire (i.e. from 330 to 1453) the chronological division would make even less sense. In that case, the "early navy", which was not very "Byzantine", but very much "late Roman", should be split off entirely and joined with the Roman Navy article, with which, indeed, there already is a considerable overlap. To put it bluntly, describing the liburnian in an article on the Byzantine navy would not really make sense. Similarly, the late navy was so much dominated by Italian influence (not to mention being very small and with scant details available on it), that any section dedicated to its ships or tactics would be a waste of space and a duplication of things better stated elsewhere. Most articles on historical entities I've come across begin with a history section to provide context and an overview, and then have several sections on the more specific topics: government, culture, military, etc. If the current structure were somehow faulty or misleading, I'd certainly accept any proposal for a reorganization. But if it is only meant to break up the long history section because it is "boring", then no. Historical articles with lots of detail do unfortunately tend to be somewhat packed (reading Pryor's book on the dromon, replete with obscure technical and philological details, was not a pleasure ride either). But in this particular case, I think the prose in itself is good, and it is only the density of information that provides a headache. Even if we adopted the new structure, that would not really change either, as the bulk of the history section (the Byzantine-Arab conflict etc) would continue unaltered. I do look forward though to any additions on the issue of Arab ships. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 19:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remaining issues:
  1. The Italian ship types of the Byzantine navy aren't sufficiently covered.
  2. In naval tactics and weapons the rise of crossbows should be highlighted because it changed the structure of naval combat. (see Nicolle)
  3. I'm still not satisfied with the article structure. The navy adopted to different threats and this isn't highlighted enough. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to cover point 1) without going into too much detail, as this is not the most relevant article. As for point 2), this may be true for Westerners, but I have seen no indication of it for the Byzantines either in books or articles. While crossbows may have been used at sea by the Byzantines, whether they "transformed naval warfare" for the Empire, when the Byzantine navy for the most part consisted of a dozen ships or even less, would be doubtful. A similar example are cannons, which also transformed naval warfare, but not for the Byzantines. In this case, however, we have clear source stating their non-use. On point 3), in terms of structure alone, I have given my reasons for so far refusing to do it. On the totally separate issue of "not highlighting enough" how the navy adapted to different threats, I beg to differ. The changing circumstances under which and the different foes against whom the Byzantines operated are very clearly mentioned in the history section. It is exactly this continuity in the narrative which I fear would be lost if we split the article up. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 16:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 1 Needs more coverage because almost half of it's existence this navy depended on Italian type ships or used them.
  2. 2 The crossbow is important beause it altered the number of marines and the availability of recruits.
  3. 3 I don't ask yout to implement the structure I suggested. I ask you to highlight better how the navy adapted to different threats, because the Vandals were certainly different from the Muslims and the Rus. I don't ask you to highlight any more who, when and where a battle was fought, but by what means the Byzantines prevailed or were defeated. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On point 1), I am trying to find more sources on the ships used by the Byzantines, but there is very little to go on. Furthermore, "half its existence" is a very gross exaggeration for the period late 12th century-1450s, when one considers that a navy practically did not exist for several periods during this time. I can not in good conscience add a description of the Italian galleys as complete as that of the dromon in an article about a navy that was not their primary user. Even more so since info on 13th-century galleys is scarce, and the 14th-century galleys, on which we know more, were used by the Byzantines in very small numbers. Also, as the links I provided show, there were different types of ships, and we don't know what kinds the Byzantine used anyway. The prevalence of Italian designs is noted and repeatedly emphasized, and their major characteristics are given. Anything more would derail the Ships section completely. The same (roughly) goes for the crossbow. No evidence for use by the Byzantines. There is also the fact that the Genoese (who were expert crossbowmen) seem to have lost most of their naval engagements with the Venetians, which leads me to doubt the veracity of how the crossbow "transformed naval warfare". I did however add a generic reference. I appreciate your remarks and want to have this article as comprehensive as possible, but please note that it is not titled "Medieval naval warfare", even though it has come to contain most of the stuff related to the subject.
As for point 3), I will try to emphasize the differences, but frankly, given the limited nature of our sources, unless the difference was major (e.g. Byzantine dromons vs Rus' monoxyla), there is little to go on. The section on tactics makes clear that winning a naval engagement against a similar-sized and equipped force was very much a matter of luck and generalship, and not related to technical or organizational aspects. Regards, Constantine ✍ 13:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Why are some citations "J. Norwich" but others are "MacGeorge"? Consistency is important. The only reason I could see to use an initial is to distinguish between two authors with the same last name. I don't see any in the sources.
  • What makes "Heath, Ian (1984). Armies of the Middle Ages, Volume 2: The Ottoman Empire, Eastern Europe and the Near East, 1300-1500. Wargames Research Group" a reliable source?
    • The same reason that makes "Heath, Ian; McBride, Angus (1995). Byzantine Armies: AD 1118–1461. Osprey Publishing." a reliable source. Its the same author. His academic credentials may not be comparable to many of the other authors listed here, but he is one of the few sources on late Byzantine warfare I have come across that even mention the navy. Constantine ✍ 14:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was more concerned with the publisher on this, I'm unclear on their reputation for fact checking. I'm on the fence about it, it probably is reliable, but ... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I understood as much. I anticipated someone would raise the question, actually. But the work is surprisingly good and thorough, often much better than the relevant Osprey books, if I may say so... Either way, he is used only as citation for two events and one for the Book of Pseudo-Kodinos, so there's not much of a chance he could have included something incorrect I suppose. Constantine ✍ 15:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong Support - As far as I can see, almost everything requested has been ammended, and with a small polish, this should become a FA.
  • Support and make that strong if the issues raised in this review are fixed! Very well presented, informative, engaging, well-written. Everything a FA should be.
Comments -
  • Question - It might be late in the day to suggest this, but wouldn't History of the Byzantine Navy be a better title for this article? No 'static' or 'snapshot' view of the navy is provided in the article (correctly IMO), and the tone of the lead suggests that the article will guide the reader through the historical progression. With a time span of 1000 years (and, as the article, says repeated decline/recovery) to suggest that there was a single identifiable "byzantine navy" is perhaps pushing it a bit far. I'd say the same about something like "Roman Army".
  • Some minor points from the lead:
    • With the Muslim conquests from the 7th century onwards, the Mediterranean Sea ceased being a "Roman lake" - Surely it had ceased to be a Roman Lake before 455 when the Vandals sacked Rome from the sea? The point might stand for the Eastern Mediterranean though.
    • Shipping by sea is a tautolog - either 'transport by sea' or just 'shipping'
    • 'very existence of Byzantium - I assume that you mean the Byzantine Empire, but "Byzantium" could also be interpreted by a general reader as meaning the city of Byzantium/Constantinople. I think this should be made less ambiguous if possible.
  • A major point for the lead: I think you should add a fourth paragraph briefly summarising the composition & tactics of the navy. Otherwise the lead does not summarise the whole article.
  • The article ends rather abruptly with a discussion of Greek fire. I think there is definite scope for a short 'Conclusions' section to end the article. Not just a summary (the lead does that) but see if there any general conclusions that authors come to about the navy and its role. For example; Was a strong navy a prerequisite for a strong Byzantium? Although not necessarily easy to do, this would end the article nicely.
  • I agree with Gun Powder Ma (below) about the infobox. I would be tempted to kill it completely. The article does such a good job of summarising a millennium history that the reader should be made to read it - infoboxes do so much to detract from the narrative. Also, it is impossible to sum up that millennium of history by simply listing Allies and Enemies (especially since they were often the same state). I really don't think that infobox brings anything to the article.
  • I also agree with Gun Powder Ma about the disappearance of the ram. Surely the ram is too obvious to just have been 'mislaid'? There must have been some factor(s) which caused the ram to be abandonded? Lack of manpower? (Single banked ships might not have been able to generate the speed necessary to effectively ram (compared to a trireme for instance))
  • Having re-read it (and copy-edited the first half for prose), I think it's true that the prose in the second half of the article needs a bit of a polish. I will try to help out with this.
    • I have now gone through the whole article rewording as I saw fit. Another set of eyes would probably help make this more complete!

MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good observations. For the title, since the Byzantine navy is already a historical entity, it would be rather redundant, again, like the "Roman army" and the likes. If one were to separate the "Operational history" section into a different article, then "History of the Byzantine navy" would make more sense. For the other points: The Vandals did interrupt Roman hegemony, but their threat waned after 477, and with Justinian's conquests, Roman control was fully restored (explained in the article). On the other two points, action is being taken! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 13:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having now read the article fully, I see that the Vandals are discussed. However, I still think the sentence in the lead is a bit misleading; it makes it sound as if there was complete continuity from Rome to Byzntium with no challenge in the Med until the arabs. This is, however, a very minor point.
  • I added the Vandal "interruption" into the lead for completeness. A fourth paragraph will be added, and a conclusion section too. As for the infobox, two points: Venice (and Genoa) are listed in the "enemies" section as well. Venice was a loyal ally of Byzantium for two centuries (and a paid one for a further century) before 1204, and event he Ottomans were once allies of Byzantium under John VI. Nevertheless, that's the problem with infoboxes, and I would gladly do without it, only then someone would come and say "the article needs an infobox". If there are no objections from the current reviewers, I will however gladly consign it to the dustbin. The ram now... There is no claim made in the article as to why it was abandoned. The fact is merely stated. I will try to find some evidence on the process and the reasons. Constantine ✍ 10:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to reduce the tactics & ships section into a simple paragraph for the lead, but frankly, the result was not good. I only introduced a brief statement the re-establishment of a permanent navy and the introduction of the dromon as the point where the typically "Byzantine" navy takes over from the Late Roman one. Any suggestions however are welcome. Constantine ✍ 12:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the info box provide a third category like "changing alliance" or something? Alternatively, one could substitute the info on enemies and allies altogether by cats relating to the navy itself. Something like "Main ship" = "Dromon (type of galley)"; Crews = "lower-class free born men", "tactics" = "grappling, boarding, missile fire"; special weapon = "Greek fire", etc. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not with one of the standard infoboxes, I'm afraid. We'd have to build one solely for this article. I am quite prepared to do it, but perhaps no infobox might be better. I am waiting for opinions on this. Constantine ✍ 12:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong support. The overall composition and structure of the article, the subtle dialectic approach in describing and analyzing the chaging fortunes of the BN over a period of a millenium, the balanced views, and the broad basis of scholarship consulted, make a featured status for this piece of work well-deserved. A few minor points nonetheless
    • The article lacks illustrations both in terms of quality and quantity. Since the author had to contend with what Commons provides, and made the best use of it, this however should not detract from his work.
    • The right-hand box with Venice as "allies" irritates me. After all, Venice was instrumental in bringing down the empire and Constantinople in 1204. Similarly, another "ally" Genoa remained neutral in 1453 when it counted. I am aware that the box is only meant as a rough guide for the layman, but can't we do something about this black-white categorization? It does not seem fitting for an institution which could look back on a 1000 years of alliance and enemities.
    • The role of the ram is somewhat misleadingly perceived as a kind of lost wonder-weapon, whose lack somehow inhibited medieval Mediterranean warfare. However, the actual story is a bit more complicated. If I am not completely mistaken, the process by which the ram was abandoned was not like the story of a technology forgotten, but should rather conceived as a response to certain drawbacks, or the changing nature of naval warfare at the transition from antiquity to the Middle Ages. The article would win in stature if the transition from ancient ramming to medieval boarding and missile tactics can be more plausibly explained to the reader. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose, I think that in terms of prose the article starts well, but deteriorates somewhat as the article progresses. A few examples:
    • "The Muslim advance in Asia Minor and the Aegean was halted, and a thirty-year truce concluded soon after." So the truce ended? Or the agreement to a truce concluded, and the truce began?
    • "... it is usually assumed that their naval efforts blended in with the existing Mediterranean maritime tradition ...". What does "blended in" mean? Seems a strange phrase in this context.
    • "... great care was shown to the navy". What does that mean?
    • "Muslim raids unfolded unceasingly". Seems very awkward. Do raids "unfold"?
    • "The Byzantines on the other hand were weakened by a series of catastrophic defeats against the Bulgars, followed in 820 by the revolt of Thomas the Slav, which carried along a large part of the Byzantine armed forces ...". What does "carried along mean"?
    • "the increasing fracturing" sounds wierd.
    • "During the course of the latter 9th and the 10th century ...". Latter ninth? Not sure what that's supposed to mean. Late-9th?
    • "The Empire's growing might was displayed in 942, when Emperor Romanos I sent a squadron which destroyed a fleet of Muslim corsairs from Fraxinetum with Greek fire." Sent the fleet where?
    • "... returned home after appearing off Acre due to the refusal of Count Philip of Flanders and many important nobles of the Kingdom of Jerusalem to help." Did they return home because of the refusal to help, or did they appear off Acre because of the refusal to help?
"blended in" was my humble addition today. Obviously, I am no native speaker, and I apologize for contributing to the presumed "deterioration" of the article. I will refrain from making further edits. However, I do think that the points you raised are in sum minor given the length of the article, and could be properly addressed, if the nominator is given sufficient time. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made only one point, which is that I think that the second half of the article needs to be thoroughly copyedited. I do not consider that to be "minor". What I listed above are simply a few examples of why I think that copyediting is required. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arab influences

Wandalstouring asked me to drop by with some further info from Nicolle ( Nicolle, David; (1996) Medieval Warfare Source Book: Christian Europe and its Neighbours, Brockhampton Press, ISBN 1860198619) regarding the transfer of maritime technology from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean. Rather than introducing yet another editor's ideas contribs into the equation, I'm just offering some quotes rather than editing the article itself. (I found some on rams, too, which seems to answer other questions raised above.)

David Nicolle quotes

(p.47)"Arabia had a far more important naval heritage than their initially cautious attitude to the Mediterranean might suggest. Pre-Islamic south Arabians had been raiding Sassanian coasts since the 4th century, and various other tribes from the Gulf and Red Sea regions also had a maritime tradition, the same peoples being selected as garrison troops for strategic coastal bases such as Alexandria following the Muslim conquest. [...on building the Muslim Med. fleet following Byzantine attempts on Egypt:] The bulk of the first marines were of Yemeni origin while Persian and Iraqi shipwrights were also brought from the Gulf to construct and man shipyards in Palestine and Lebanon. In fact it seems likely that Persian as well as Arab influence lay behind the spread of the triangular lateen sail from eastern seas to the Mediterranean. [...] From the 8th century onwards these new Muslim navies regularly raided the Byzantine-held islands of the western Med." (p.87) "By the mid 8th century [Arab] galleys were defending themselves against Byzantine Greek fire by using various systems of water-soaked cotton. But the Muslims' lack of timber may have stimulated a revival in the construction of very large ships; the economies of scale being at work. The change from hull-first to a more commercial frame-first construction had also been completed by the 11th century, together with the widespread use of lateen sails attributed to the Arabs as a result of Indian ocean influence. Stern sweep rudders were shown in 11th-century Islamic Mediterranean art, but only on small boats. A further wave of essentially Chinese maritime influence would, however, introduce the stern rudders to Islamic ships in the Indian Ocean, Gulf and Red Sea during the 11th century. Islamic and Byzantine Mediterranean warships were much the same, with a considerable exchange of technology and terminology. [...] The ship-breaking ram was finally ousted by the oar-breaking and boarding beak in the 10th century, perhaps as a result of the increasing value of ships resulting from a shortage of timber. " (p. 178)"During the 11th and 12th centuries most European galleys changed from the old alla sensile 'simple fashion' of having oars evenly spaced, usually at two levels, to the technique of grouping the oars on a single level supported by an outrigger. In this they were soon followed by Byzantine and Islamic fleets. On the other hand, Muslim shipbuilders were more advanced at building large merchant and transport ships with up to three masts."

Hope this helps the debate. I can look up further info if required. Regarding the rise of crossbows, Nicolle states that "During the 13th century armoured crossbowmen became a specialist marine elite". (p. 178). Do you need more than that? Wandalstouring also asked about high boarded ships - which I shall look into. Gwinva (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(p.47)Does Nicolle also gives his references? If Arab sailors were used in numbers in Med fleets from early on, there must certainly exist primary sources on which he relied.
As for the supposed introduction of the lateen by the Arabs into the Med, the use of both types of lateen already in Greco-Roman times has been long demonstrated by a number of authors (see, e.g., Campbell: The Lateen Sail in World History), with Lionel Casson leading the case. A selection:
  • J. Sottas: An Early Lateen Sail in the Mediterranean, MM 25 (1939), 229-230
  • H. H. Brindley, “Early Pictures of Lateen Sails,” The Mariner’s Mirror 12 (1926): 13
  • Richard LeBaron Bowen, “The Earliest Lateen Sail,” The Mariner’s Mirror 42 (1956): 241-
  • Lionel Casson, “Fore-and-Aft Sails in the Ancient World,” The Mariner’s Mirror 42 (1956): 3–5
  • Richard LeBaron Bowen, “Fore-and-Aft Sails in the Ancient World,” The Mariner’s Mirror 43 (1957): 160–64
  • Lucien Basch, “The Way to the Lateen Sail,” The Mariner’s Mirror 75 (1989): 328–32
  • G. Percival Kaeyl, “The Lateen Sail,” The Mariner’s Mirror 42 (1956): 154
and many more
(p.87)His claim on the Chinese transmission, seems to be based on conjectures by Joseph Needham, which have been in my view convincingly refuted by Lawrence V. Mott, The Development of the Rudder, A.D. 100-1337: A Technological Tale, Thesis May 1991, Texas A&M University, p.92f.. Mott points out that the very idea of mounting a rudder was far from new in the Med, and that the technological differences between the Arab and the Chinese rudder were too fundamental to asssume a transmission process:
Mott quotes

It has been argued by Needham (1971:651-52) that the concept of mounting the rudder on the stern came from China and was transmitted to the Arabs by Chinese sailors...With regards to the transmission of the sternpost-mounted rudder to the Indian Ocean, while the concept of mounting the rudder on the stern may have come from Chinese traders, it was so modified and changed that it hardly resembles its origins except in the grossest sense. As noted by Needham (1971:653), Chinese vessels did not have a sternpost to which the rudder could be attached. Instead, it was suspended and held in place by an elaborate system of tackle. The idea of attaching the rudder to the sternpost in a relatively permanent fashion, therefore, must have been an Arab invention independent of the Chinese. Also, whereas the Chinese used tillers, Arab vessels used lines to control the rudder and did not adopt the tiller until the arrival of the Portuguese (Bowen, 1963:304; Ministry of Info, of Oman, 1981:112). This raises the question as to why the Arab sailors did not adopt the more effective tiller and yet borrowed the idea of a stern-mounted rudder. The above shows that the only actual concept which can be claimed to have been transmitted from the Chinese is the idea of a stern-mounted rudder, and not its method of attachment nor the manner in which it was controlled. Since that idea of putting a rudder on the stern can be traced back to the models found in Egyptian tombs, the need to have the concept brought into the Middle East is questionable at best. There is no evidence to support the contention that the sternpost-mounted rudder came from China, and no need to call on exterior sources for its introduction into the Mediterranean.

"During the 13th century armoured crossbowmen became a specialist marine elite". Is he referring to Byzantine, Muslim or Latin crossbowmen? There is strong evidence that the crossbow was introduced by the crusaders into the Levant, since Anna Komnena called the weapon new in 1098, while Arabs chroniclers named it henceforth "Frankish bow". Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nicolle says that the Muslim did also employed it and had a special arrow clip. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of points: contemporary historical texts clearly mention that in many cases, Arab navies were manned by Copts and other Christians. The Muslim navy in Carthage was built by Coptic shipwrights, and a large part of the crews sent to the sieges of Constantinople defected because they were Christians. Now, I also find it hard to believe that Persian and Iraqi shipwrights were needed to construct "shipyards in Palestine and Lebanon" from scratch, as is implied. This region had a naval tradition stretching back to pre-history, and had a great number of harbor cities. Persian and Iraqi shipwrights may have been relocated there, but I seriously doubt they provided the core of the Arab naval build-up. As for crossbows, the Byzantines may have already had crossbows in the 10th century: there is mention of cheirotoxobolistrai in the Cretan expeditions, but opinion is divided on whether these were deck-mounted ballistae drawn by hand (John Haldon), or crossbows carried by hand. George Dennis and Pryor are of the latter opinion. The new crossbows (tzangra) mentioned by Anna Komnene may have been of a different design and possibly more powerful, or, alternatively, the use of the earlier crossbows could have been discontinued. Constantine ✍ 10:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From reading the excerpts from Nicolle graciously provided by Gwinva, I really don't see any major problems. He clearly states that "Islamic and Byzantine Mediterranean warships were much the same, with a considerable exchange of technology and terminology.", which is all we need in the present article. Anything more and this article will be derailed. We are not debating the exact nature of medieval Arab warships, or where each and every piece of nautical technology came from, but general outlines so that the correlation between the Arab and Byzantine navies is better understood. I have incorporated Nicolle's references to the section (including the one on Persian shipwrights, presumably he is basing it on primary sources), which ought to be OK now. Constantine ✍ 13:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, issue solved about the exchange of technology and who manned the Muslim ships(there were Yemeni settlements in the Levant that contributed marines, but that should be a minor issue here). Gunpowder Ma has contributed some sources about the introduction of the lateen sail. That ought to be incorporated because more large masts usually demand a different construction of the ship's frame and rigging. Also, the lateen sails enabled better cruising. This change seems to appear in the Late Roman/Early Byzantine navy. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree, preferably this should be added right after the newly-added section on the abandonment of the ram. If anyone is willing to contribute to that, he's welcome! Constantine ✍ 15:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gun Powder Ma and I have added some info on the lateen sail and its origin. I have also added some more info on the late navy (Nicaean period, and negative aspects of the Komnenian reforms) as well as expanding the lead per MinisterForBadTimes' suggestions and making several copyedits. I invite the reviewers to re-check the article (esp. Malleus for prose), and also to offer their opinion on the issue of retaining the infobox or not. Best regards to all, Constantine ✍ 22:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support The page addresses an important subject on which there is relatively little scholarly comment available. What little is available is often sketchy and widely dispersed within books whose main concern is not the Byzantine navy. The most relevant sources are indeed referenced, in particular the Conway book on galley evolution and 'The Age of the Dromon.'

With regard to the above-the-waterline spur replacing the ram, I believe that there is some belief that it was intended for use as a 'boarding bridge' (see: Medieval Naval Warfare, 1000-1500 By Susan Rose, p. 132 and Renaissance War Galley 1470-1590 By Angus Konstam, p.8). This makes considerable sense when the difficulties of broadside to broadside boarding between vessels with rows of projecting oars is recognised.

The subject of the article is of considerable scope, particularly chronologically, and it covers it admirably. I don't think there is as fine a single-article treatment of the Byzantine navy available anywhere else, in any medium. I would reiterate my strong support for the 'elevation' of this article.Urselius (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image concerns as follows:

  • File:ByzantineEmpire717+extrainfo+themes.PNG — was this created by translating the information/maps gathered in the book onto a public domain base map? If not, please do so, as a direct copy of the maps would be copyviolations.
The map is not directly copied from the book. I happen to think the map, and the original it was taken from, is remarkably inaccurate in its depiction of Byzantine Thrace (the Byzantines controlled Adrianople, Philipoppolis, Serdica (mod. Sofia) etc. at the time, but this has no bearing on its copyright.Urselius (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After checking the source through Google Books, I agree. The maps in the book are more detailed and focus on the eastern Mediterranean. It is reasonable to say that the author likely created the base map from scratch or memory, adding the information from the book (which are accurate or not). Anyway, this is struck. Now if someone can re-locate the sources of the two images above, we can clear the image concerns. Jappalang (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image sources re-linked directly to the files. Constantine ✍ 14:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please link to the page that is hosting the image, not directly to the file. The direct links to the file can be appended to the page, e.g. "[link to site] (specifically [link to file])". Jappalang (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'd done before, but the site doesn't allow direct linking: if you try to input the link directly, it always redirects back to the main page (e.g. [18] for the Byz. reconquest image and [19] for the Arab fleet. I have expanded the source info with a more detailed pat,h, so that their origin is verifiable, however. Constantine ✍ 18:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is great, thank you for providing the path. Jappalang (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tidied up the other images (licenses, rationales, etc), so they should be fine. Resolving the above should settle the image issues. Jappalang (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All image issues resolved. Jappalang (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well written, well referenced, illustration issues have been fixed. What is there not to like? Only issue a few redlinks such as Vitalian, Damian of Tyre and pavesade. I don't like redlinks and in any case they should be eliminated from an FA article. Aside from that I'm sold. Dr.K. logos 02:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (Disclaimer: I was asked to help copy-edit by Constantine)
    • In the lead section there's an ambiguous their (noted in an embedded comment). Although it quite likely refers to the Byzantine Empire, it could be interpreted to mean Venice/Genoa.
    • In section "6th century…", 2nd paragraph, sentence beginning In 535, the Gothic War began by a double-pronged Byzantine offensive…, what were the two prongs? Also, wars are generally started by someone; perhaps it might be better if it read In 535, the Gothic War began with a double-pronged…
    • Same section, 3rd paragraph begins with this sentence fragment: In 541 however, the new Ostrogoth Byzantines.
    • During the 640s, the Muslim conquest of Syria and Egypt created a new threat. To whom were they a threat?
    • The sentence beginning The Byzantines followed this up with the destruction of the North African flotillas… should probably be split into two sentences.
    • The sentence beginning This "Byzantine Reconquest" was overseen by the able sovereigns… is uncited.
    • I got lost in this sentence: Continuing the policies of his predecessor, Michael III (842–867), he showed great care to the fleet, and as a result, successive victories followed: in 867, a fleet under the droungarios tou plōïmou Niketas Ooryphas relieved Dalmatia from Arab attacks and reestablished Byzantine presence in the area,[63] while a few years later, he twice heavily defeated the Cretan pirates,[64] temporarily securing the Aegean.[54]. It should be split into two (or more) sentences to make the meaning easier to follow.
    • Who is saying the quoted material that begins Byzantium's lack of a navy [...] meant that Venice could…? It just appears and is not attributed to anyone. The same goes for the extended quote in the section "Naval strategy, logistics and tactics" farther down in the article.
    • Another really long sentence that should be split: The fleet under John Doukas was subsequently used to suppress revolts in Crete and Cyprus,[16] and with the aid of the Crusaders, Alexios was able to regain the coasts of Western Anatolia and expand his influence eastwards: in 1104, a Byzantine squadron of 10 ships captured Laodicea and other coastal towns as far as Tripoli.[17]
    • In the section "Naval themes", each of the first three themes is introduced by its name in bold type, followed by a period, then a sentence beginning "It was…". Integrate the names and incorporate some variation in these descriptions, much like what is done for the other themes appearing below these.
    • In the section "Dromon and its derivatives", bold type is used for emphasis, counter to MOS:BOLD.

— Bellhalla (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help! I have gone through the list and addressed your concerns. Is there anything else you would like to remark on, aside from MOS issues? Regards, Constantine ✍ 23:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to return to Wikipedia reading such a great article. Comments:
  • The article is long, and I am not sure if the use of WP:SS is always the recommended one. For instance, is Byzantium under the Isaurians far more analytic than the section "Byzantine counter-offensive", in terms of a main article–summary relation? Anyway, comprehensiveness is above length, and sometimes choices in this field are subjective.
  • History is replete with instances where galley fleets were sunk by bad weather". Such broad remarks make the reading more enjoyable, but, at the same time, I always fell my leaps asking "such as?"! Again, a somehow subjective comment related to the continuously unanswered question about how exactly we want an encyclopedis article written.
  • Minor minor issue, but if Basch in your references is also in french, you should indicate that as you do with your first source.
Well-written, excellent research and referencing, nice use of quotes, images, captions. Comprenensive definitely! I am a little concerned about the length and SS issue, but I'll support this great article. I read it once, but I'll do it again, and if I find some issues I ommitted in my first reading, I'll come back here with further comments.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Yannis! It is a great pleasure to see you back! The third point has been addressed, and as for the second, I have added a reference to the massive Roman losses during the First Punic War. On your first concern, sadly, there are several such instances: the dromon article is much shorter than the current section in this article. Hopefully however, these articles will be expanded to justify their inclusion. Thanks for your support, and once again, welcome back! Constantine ✍ 12:49, 13 March 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 SandyGeorgia 21:34, 15 March 2009 [20].

SM U-66

Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)

This is an article about the class leader of the GermanU-66-class of submarines during World War I. Note: From my research I've not been able to find any images of U-66 (or other class members) other than a single line drawing that would probably not meet NFCC. The article has passed a GA review and a Military History A-Class review. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref format comment -- issues found with WP:REFTOOLS.

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - an excellent article. I have performed a minor copyedit and have one or two comments.

  • "(the capital of Massachusetts nicknamed, coincidentally, the "Bay State")" - interesting, but is it relevant?
  • An image would be nice - is there no image of any submarines of this class that could give an idea of her shape?

Otherwise, great work--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and copyedit. As to your two points:
  • I think the "Bay State" thing is interesting, but could agree to lose it if there's a consensus
  • As I mentioned in the nom statement, the only illustration I've found is of any sort for U-66 (or U-67—U-70) is a side view line drawing that is of uncertain copyright status. Given past interpretations of NFCC criterion 1 ("Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent… could be created…" [emphasis added]), I don't think it would be acceptable, especially in a featured article (if this article is so deemed, of course). — Bellhalla (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But wouldn't a "free" image based of the line drawing be a derivative work and therefore copyrighted as well? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I understand it, if the "free" work was based only on the line drawing, then, yes, it would be a derivative work. But the key in the NFCC—again, as I understand it—is whether a free image could be created, a different matter than whether it is likely to be created. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I gave the article a hard look at A-class review and couldn't find any issues with it. An excellent article on the subject. Cla68 (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good. A few things could be improved in the writing, but I'm not opposing on the basis of 1a.

  • Overlinked. Do we really need "launched" and "commissioned"? And "displace"? Oh, I suppose so, since at least they're all specifically on ships; but consider instead listing them in the "See also" section, where you wouldn't have to pipe them so they look like dictionary words, and readers would be much more likely to follow them up. Interrupting one's reading of the lead seems unlikely. Not a deal-breaker. But I do draw the line at "diesel engine", "electric motors", and the repeat link for "deck gun".
  • "which increased the surface displacement by 96 metric tons (106 short tons) and the submerged by 48 metric tons (53 short tons)." The ellipsis doesn't really work.
  • " The torpedo load was increased by a third, from 9 to 12, and the deck gun was upgraded from the 66 mm (2.6 in) gun originally specified to an 88 mm (3.5 in) one." Can't think how to avoid the "one" at the end. Any ideas?
  • " U-66 was able to cast off at a moment's notice and attack any enemy submarines encountered." --> "to attack an enemy submarine."
  • "U-66 was not credited with the sinking any vessels of any kind during this time." "of" is missing. Or remove "the".
  • "18" then "fifteen"? See MOSNUM. And and apostrophe is required on minutes.
  • What's the rule on italicising the 's here: Sjolyst 's? Might be less fussy if all italicised. Tony (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queries Hi, that was an interesting read, but I have a few questions:

  • Santanderino - a liner with 40 passengers and crew (4 dead 36 survivors) thats not a lot for a liner, would you mind checking that?
  • Towed past Gibraltar. I can see why the U3s would need a tow as their range was quite limited, but these boats had an adequate range to sail from Kiel to Trieste. Would you mind checking why the Austrians didn't try to get past Gibraltar? I would be surprised if boats of their range would have been towed on such a journey, but I could understand if they decided not to run the risk anyway.
  • What escape systems did these boats have (if any).
  • "The U-7 class was seen by the Austro-Hungarian Navy as an improved version of its U-3 class," some detail as to why it was seen as an improvement would be appropriate.
    • I can list things that I think make the U-7 class boats better: they were bigger, faster, held more torpedoes, were better armed, they probably had more reliable engines, and the manufacturer had about four more years of submarine-building experience since the U-3 class was built. Regrettably, the source doesn't give reasons why the Austro-Hungarian Navy saw it that way. I could include some of the comparisons of the two classes, but I think it borders on WP:SYNTHESIS to try and make specific connections. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The master of Neath was taken prisoner,[49] but had been released and landed at Queenstown two days later." I take it that a German Submarine didn't dock in Ireland during WWI? But I'd like to know how that release was done, and incidentally how many prisoners she could carry.
    • That would be nice to know, but I don't have any source to provide details about Neath's master. U-boats generally didn't have much extra room, but are known in some cases to have carried one or two back to Germany. Part of Germany's rationale/justification for unrestricted submarine warfare was the U-boats didn't have room to hold crews captive. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As completed she needed a crew of 36 but was lost with a crew of 40. Is that correct and if so what caused the change?
OK that makes sense
  • A little more detail as to crew composition and conditions would be appropriate. I.e. how many were officers, were the men volunteers or conscripts, personal space onboard and crew facilities etc.

Sorry thats a long list but it did pique my interest. WereSpielChequers 13:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Nicely written, interesting stuff. Thanks for taking the trouble to investigate my pedanticisms, a pity if the sources don't cover all of them but I wanted to be sure that they'd been checked. WereSpielChequers 17:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: the copyrights and details of the two images have been corrected (sources and licenses were incorrect to begin with...), so no issues remain. Jappalang (talk) 22:30, 13 March 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 SandyGeorgia 21:34, 15 March 2009 [21].

Premiere (The O.C.)

Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk)

Okay, I have been working on this for a while now. I got this to GA in October, and it has been at peer review for the last month. This is my first FAC, and I couldn't have got here without the massive help of a number of editors with FAC experience. Thanks in advance for any comments and, in the words of Luke, "Welcome to the O.C., bitch". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, preempting the inevitable question about the reliability of seeing-stars.com, this was briefly discussed at both PRs and it has been unopposed at WP:RS/N for the last week. (This has since been automatically archived). Oh, and I am in the WikiCup. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Other than the seeing-stars site, I have no concerns. I'll leave that one for others to decide.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I helped out during the peer review as far as my skills allowed it, but I haven't really watched the improvements afterwards. Reading the article again now, I can't find anything standing out that violates the FA criteria. (Two things though: I don't really understand the need for the Notes section for ratings when the term is already linked, and Glen Rojas's opinion feels a little jarring at its current position, but I couldn't make it work elsewhere either.) – sgeureka t•c 13:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1c. I'm sorry, but seeing-stars.com is a deal breaker. A self-published web site whose only substantial press is as an incidental source for tourist information cannot possibly be considered a reliable source for serious research. I found a mention in the Los Angeles Business Journal, but the Journal just writes that it is a good source for learning where a star eats, etc. The best sources have not been used here. --Laser brain (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to disagree. There are no better sources for this information, the only other sources are much less reliable fan blogs. So in that respect the best sources have been used. According to Chino's Daily Bulletin the site "backs up its assertions with photographic comparisons" and as for only having one bit of substantial press, there seems to be a fair bit of press on it here. If better sources existed I would have used them, so if you know of any, please let me know. Also, I don't know if there is anything more I could have done to establish this source. I spoke to a number of editors about it and left in up on the reliable sources noticeboard where it was unopposed until its automatic archival. I would be a little peeved if this was the stumbling block of lots of hard work. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd have a better time believing this to be a reliable source for the claims in the article if the site actually verified its statements with the folks tied to the production of the episode. Surely they discuss filming on the DVD commentary? And I would be willing to bet that they give a much broader picture of what filming entailed than just the fan-like trivia compilation of locations that the section currently features. BuddingJournalist 17:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can I take you up on that bet! I've just spent (wasted) an hour watching features on the DVD season 1 box set which I hired. A full episode commentary for pilot (which is a bonus feature on DVD1) states nothing about filming locations, it's just full of what scenes set up for the future of the series. I also watched "Inside The Real O.C." (bonus on DVD7) which is completely unrelated and is just a bunch of kids relating their experiences to the show. The DVDs provide no information at all. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was basing my hunch on "I knew from the DVD commentary on the pilot episode that it was a real home, in a real cul-de-sac." at seeing-stars.com, so I figured that the commentary touched at least some aspect of the filming. Do they not discuss anything at all related to filming (note, there's more to filming than just where they shot scenes)? BuddingJournalist 21:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Um they do mention it is a real cul-de-sac but leave it at that. The other filming stuff they mention is things like "they spent 3/4 nights" filming the Holly's beach house scene. The other stuff is I see as fairly trivial though. For example, that the scene of Ryan being driven back home is filmed at sunset but depicting sunrise, Doug Liman filmed a scene on a hand-held camera (whatever that means), and that the camera crew can be seen in one scene as it was the end of the day and they were hurrying. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I guess it all depends on what you define as trivial. "Doug Liman filmed a scene on a hand-held camera" may not be as trivial as you think (I don't know how much detail they go into on this), especially since you don't seem to understand the implications of hand-held filming. The difference between hand-held and traditional fixed camera filming is rather noticeable and contributes greatly to the look and feel of a TV program/film. A description of the filming style and why it was chosen is something I would expect to see in a featured film/TV article (if sources were available that discuss it). BuddingJournalist 22:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Adding to the above reply, the press you cite is talking about seeing-stars as a tourism web site, not as a place of serious entertainment journalism. With all due respect and credit to your hard work, this is unacceptable. Start with a few hours in the library searching scholarly databases that index major newspapers and entertainment periodicals. --Laser brain (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually one of the press cites explicitly mentions the O.C. part of the site, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Also, with all due respect, this is not some 2009 episode of Lost where every breath the actor takes on set is recorded by some entertainment periodical. Are you actually saying this filming loaction information should be removed from the article? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm saying FA requires the best sources, and this is not an acceptable source. This information can't be removed, either, because it is required for comprehensiveness. I can't go further with examining the prose until the sourcing issue is sorted out. --Laser brain (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • So basically its a no win. Because the most scholarly sources you require don't exist, and the information cannot be removed. I'm sorry if I sound frustrated, but in truth I am. I have had plently of people look at this source along the way. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I would argue that very little of what is in Filming at the moment is at all required for comprehensiveness. While filming locations are informative, there is much more to filming than just locations. I fail to see what's encyclopedic, for example, about giving the exact address of the Cohen's house. BuddingJournalist 21:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • May I ask if you have checked the databases I mentioned? For example, a couple minutes searching told me that Entertainment Weekly is indexed back to 1993 in Thompson Gale and EBSCOhost. --Laser brain (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I couldn't find anything on Thomson Gale. EBSCOhost gave one PDF which mentioned that the on location filming was captured on Kodak 5274 and Kodak 5279 stock cameras for day and night scenes respectively. I still found nothing about where it was shot. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To both BuddingJournalist and Laser brain. I have mocked up an alternative filming section in my sandbox. Could you take a look and tell me if this would be acceptable for both reliability and comprehensiveness. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prose could use some work (for example, I'm unsure what "Schwartz described the scene as "selling the world", due to there being no advancement in the story line" is trying to say; "Unusually, the scene..." <-- use of unusually is too generic—-unusually for the show?), but I think it's an improvement on the current Filming section; the added anecdotes make for a much more fulfilling read than a list of locations. Of course, if a more reliable source than seeing-stars.com is found at some point in the future that lists the locations, then the info can be included; just try to avoid delving into trivia territory. BuddingJournalist 01:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I have replaced the filming section. Could you tell me of any problems you find in that particular section, as it is now the only section that hasn't received thorough copyediting. Thanks for the patience, you probably prevented me giving up completely. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a I see you've gone a few rounds with this at peer review and whatnot, but honestly it is not up to a professional standard of writing. It's going to need some solid time with an effective copyeditor. Some representative issues are below, but I'm finding problems in almost every sentence:
    • "Financial restrictions forced the production to move from Newport to the Manhattan Beach, California region." This is out-of-place. The whole para is about casting, and suddenly we have this sentence about location. Probably not important enough for the lead. It's also not entirely accurate: "financial restrictions" suggests not having enough money, but later we find out it was actually a "penalty".
    • "The series premiered with a solid viewership, leading the first half-hour of its time slot." This is so-so. It's a pretty wordy way of saying "The premiere led the first half-hour of its time slot in viewership." We can do without the peacock wording. -Done
    • "The episode was generally received well by critics ..." Probably "well received by critics" would be better. -Done
    • Usually, the or a aspect ratio, not just "aspect ratio". -Done
    • "... and is available for purchase in iTunes Stores." No, "in the iTunes Store." There is not more than one.
    • "A cold open shows Trey Atwood (Bradley Stryker) and his brother Ryan's attempt to steal a car." If the police were chasing them, didn't they actually steal it? Therefore, no attempt. -Done
    • "The police chase and eventually arrest the boys, sending the underage Ryan to juvenile hall." The police sent them to juvenile hall?
    • "... but also ranks in the ninety-eighth percentile on his SAT Is." Way too colloquial. You wouldn't say "Barry Bonds ranks #1 in baseballs" would you? Better: "... but his SAT I scores rank in the ninety-eighth percentile." -Done
    • "When Ryan's mother Dawn (Daphne Ashbrook) picks up Ryan, Sandy leaves his business card with the boy." From where? Better: "Sandy gives his business card to the boy." -Done
I stopped reading here. --Laser brain (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I have addressed or commented on all the specific examples above. Could you recommend an effective copyeditor as I have already used a significant amount of the editors who have experience with TV articles at FAC level, and a few copyeditors on top of that. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It can be difficult to find good copy editors for pop culture articles. I will poke around, though. --Laser brain (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hands up who doesn't know what "television series" means in English. Overlinking. -Done
  • "... Seth Cohen, who was derived from Schwartz's experiences at the University of Southern California as ..."—sounds like a mathematical expression. "based on"? Then we go from past to present tense "are". -Done
  • "it was remastered in a widescreen for the complete series DVD released in November 2007"—"in widescreen", possibly? Not just one of them. And to be fussy, a comma after "DVD", so as not to indicate subset (of complete-series DVDs).
  • Idle "also" begging to be removed. -Done
  • "and is available for purchase in iTunes Stores"—Is this perilously close to advertising? I'm uncomfortable, especially as the round-off of the lead. And it's repeated further down. Sandy?
  • "The police chase and eventually arrest the boys, causing Trey to to be sent to prison"—"causing" is part of an unidiomatic expression here; pretty awkward. "resulting in a prison term for Trey and ?enforeced time in a juve...." Unsure about how to word the second bit. -Done
  • Ryan's mother "picks up Ryan"?—Dirty old woman. Reword to avoid the dating implication. "collects him from ?school ..." or something. I'm not reading closely. -Done
  • "However, she does not even know that he exists." This is very informal language. -Done
  • "were actually filmed in Los Angeles"—remove "actually". Old advice from Fowler. -Done
  • I was a little confused at this: "The show was predominently recorded on 35 mm film stock. Unusually for the show, a scene in the Atwood home in Chino was shot on a hand-held camera by director Doug Liman. Savage stated this ensured that the show "doesn't feel like glossy soap opera"." So just one bit wasn't glossy? What was the point?
    • Without going into my opinion about it being to illustrate that Chino is a rough place (Ryan is being thrown out of the house and beaten by his mum's boyfriend at the time), the DVD commentary only states things like it is "helps sell the mythology of Chino", "jumping the line" (whatever that means), and "it feels very kinetic". Can I use any of that do you think? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OMG, this critic says it all about this genre: "is really too good-looking to be playing an unpopular kid". Pffff, sorry, not criticising the article. -Removed that bit
  • "Among Schwartz's favorite musical moment from the show was Joseph Arthur's "Honey and the Moon",[53] which helped him write the pilot.[54]" The last comment is WP speaking? It's unclear: the lyrics or what? Prefer "which he claimed ...", to de-WP the statement. -Done

Look, it's undistinguished in my view, and hard to justify as "among our best work"; but I can't see a solid reason to oppose at this stage, as long as the points I've made are cleaned up. Tony (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Objection Closed - Premiere (The O.C.) is a Winner!

"supervising producer Stephanie Savage provided input..." - i've no idea why this is important, but anyhow, i didn't read some parts of the article (like the entire plot) because it's just so [like wow!]... lastly you may, if wished, change Popular culture -> Trivial nonsense to meet 1cWhatisFeelings? (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per 1c the information is all factually accurate. Please don't be sarcastic about what you think of the article. If you think it is boring fine, but please judge the article against the criteria and not by whether you like it or not. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one doesn't count as a point as there's no bullet point preceding the remark. It's just a conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatisFeelings? (talk • contribs) 19:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two questions before I review more thoroughly. The term "projected shooting date" is used a couple of times, but the article never states when filming took place. Is this information available at all? And is there any reason to believe that the projected shooting date and actual shooting date were at odds? If not, we may be able to scrub a bit of redundant language right there. Steve T • C 12:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Struck, Steve T • C :
    • As it stands, the "Production" section feels unfocused, and I think it's because of the absence of dates throughout. There's nothing to ground it, leading to a weak narrative. It's difficult to be drawn in if we don't know when any of this occurred. While exact filming dates are unavailable, other dates have been referenced. For example, Variety's coverage presents a reasonable chronology. Picking some of these out, we see that scripts were ordered in January 2003, casting took place February through March ([24], [25], [26], [27], [28]), by May it had been picked up, and initial scheduling strategies were presented in June. Taken individually, these offer little more than dates to cite, and some reference the series as a whole, but they do act as useful reference points for this article and I strongly advise using at least a couple. It perhaps doesn't help that the section launches straight into casting and principal photography without reference to the wider context of the series' development. I understand that to go into too much detail might duplicate information from the series article, but given that some of the development is already covered (casting), it should be referenced in some way. Even if that only takes the form of a sentence and a useful link to the relevant section in the series article.
    • This isn't an issue at all, but do you think it's worth mentioning that McG's involvement as executive producer stemmed from his being hired to direct the episode, and that he dropped out after scheduling conflicts arose with Charlie's Angels 2?
    • I agree with others that there's technically little to find fault with in the writing, so I'd perhaps not oppose based on prose issues alone. But I do think it could be more engaging with only a little work, and it would be shame if the opportunity was missed. The main issues concern redundant words and phrases. Here's a minor example from the casting section:

      The casting directors, Patrick J. Rush and Alyson Silverberg, began choosing the actors for the main roles eight to ten weeks before the projected shooting date.

      The redundancies are clear, and there are several ways to rework the sentence. e.g.:

      The casting directors, Patrick J. Rush and Alyson Silverberg, began choosing the actors for the main roles the principal cast eight to ten weeks before the projected shooting date filming started.

      An alternative might be "...began casting the main roles", and some editors might point to the superfluous "The" at the start, which if removed would negate the need for two commas and produce a smoother read without losing any of the intended meaning:

      Casting directors Patrick J. Rush and Alyson Silverberg began casting the main roles eight to ten weeks before filming started.

      Another example, this from the lead:

      Adam Brody was selected to portray Seth Cohen, who is based on Schwartz's experiences at the University of Southern California as a "neurotic Jewish kid from the East Coast in a land of water polo players".

      Brody plays the character, so of course he was selected—this feels like padding. Removing it makes for a less winding sentence:

      Seth Cohen (Adam Brody) was based on Schwartz's experiences at the University of Southern California as a "neurotic Jewish kid from the East Coast in a land of water polo players".

      If that unwieldy quote could be paraphrased, leaving the full text for the article body, that would be a boon too; admittedly, I can't see a good way of doing that.
  • I don't mean to sound so combative, but it really is worth the time spent making the prose as lean as it can be. And though you should of course feel free to dismiss these as mere personal preferences, I'd be happy to reconsider my !vote if you at least address the first bulleted issue. All the best, Steve T • C 22:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments. I have addressed all of the above. Is there any chance you could look over the new "Concept" section and copyedit or let me know what needs improving. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've made further changes that I thought necessary to clarify a few points, provide some structure to the "Production" section (dates, mainly), and remove redundancies from the prose. I didn't have time for an in-depth copyedit, unfortunately, but I think I've caught the more obvious stuff. I've struck my oppose, and I'll be back shortly to consider a support once I've double checked something on the comprehensiveness requirement. Steve T • C 11:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm not wild about the fact that development information is primarily concentrated at the main series article; it goes to the comprehensiveness requirement, as the development of a pilot episode is often that which defines a television show. It seems to be a bit of a get-out in terms of not having to provide the fullest possible coverage. But this seems to be standard procedure for other pilot episode featured articles, so I'll have to be content with the context provided by the additions made in the last 24 hours. Otherwise, no real issues. All the best, Steve T • C 11:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'm here, finally

  • I've already made this edit, changing ref date formats to mmmm dd, yyyy, the same as what is used in the prose, and other script-assisted formatting stuff.
  • "and is available for purchase from video on demand services." I think "and is available to purchase from video on demand services." is more correct -Done
  • There's a bit of WP:OVERLINKING wrt placenames. Newport Beach, California, Chino, California, University of Southern California, etc. There's no need to link, or even mention, California each and every time. It's been established it's set in California, so stating it after each and every city name is a bit OTT. It's probably just enough to link each place the first time it's used. I don't think repeating a link from the Lede is a problem, but every subsection is a bit much. Maybe link at each Level 2 section if you want? -Hopefully sorted
  • "Fox" vs "FOX" -- be consistent with one or the other ("FOX", btw, is only how the network stylises itself) -Done

A few reference concerns:

    • The "ref label"/"ref note" is now depreciated; {{#tag:ref|A rating/share represents the percentage of all television households tuned into a program, and the proportion of the television audience viewing a particular show, respectively.<ref><ref>|group="nb"}} and placing <references group="nb" /> in the Notes section is the current "in thing" according to WP:FOOT -Done
    • Ref 7 [29] is a blog. What makes it reliable?
    • Website names shouldn't be italicised: The O.C. Insider, Ref 17 (PeterGallagher.com), Ref 18 (Jam!), Ref 51 Hollywood.com, Ref 41 (TVShowsOnDVD.com), Ref 50 (Zap2it)
    • Nor should company names: Refs 44, 45 (FOX), Ref 42 (Currys), Ref 43 (Amazon Unbox)
    • Refs 40 and 41 are inconsistent in attribution -Done
    • I'm not sure about "see list" in the infobox. Everything important should be contained within the article without having to navigate away. -Done

That's all. Sorry I'm so late in coming to review. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for the comments I will reply to rest later but I must go out for a bit right now. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have stricken the comments that you've resolved. I think for company names, just move them to the publisher field. I don't think it's necessary to say "Currys" and "DSG International", for example. Website names I'm not sure about. I've asked Dabomb. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted the company names, awaiting response from Dabomb87 on the websites. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of any way to fix this. I guess that you just have to determine whether the publisher (larger corporation or group) is worth mentioning in addition to the work (website). For example, I think Jam! can stand alone in the publisher if you leave it linked. Ditto with Allmusic. On ref 17, "PeterGallagher.com" and the web title tell us all that we need to know (that it is an official website of the actor. It's all up to whether you think that the website name can stand alone; the main purpose of the publisher/work fields is to allow readers to easily find where cited information comes from and whether the site is reliable. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy to Support with the changes that have occurred due to my concerns, and I think the concerns raised by others have been addressed. Most of my concerns were brought up in the Peer review anyway. Good work to Rambo's Revenge. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tech. Review -- Based on the checker tools for dabs and external links, both are up to speed, while the ref formatting is also found up to speed based on WP:REFTOOLS.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3 - File:OC-101.jpg - This fair use image has no specific purpose of use. For help writing purposes of use, please see the end of this dispatch. Awadewit (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am discussing this issue. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All images now have adequate descriptions, verifiable licenses, and sufficiently strong fair use rationales. Awadewit (talk) 20:35, 15 March 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 SandyGeorgia 21:34, 15 March 2009 [31].

Juan Davis Bradburn

Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk)

This article is about the most hated man in Texas in the early 1830s. Bradburn was a Mexican military officer who was most talented at ticking off everyone he encountered. That trait led directly to the first armed encounter between Texas colonists and Mexican troops, and indirectly to the Texas Revolution. There has been only one full biography written about him, although he is mentioned in varying degrees of detail in pretty much every book on the Texas Revolution. The author of that biography is considered the expert on Bradburn, and much of the works I consulted were really just regurgitating her findings in new words. Therefore, sections referring to his life outside Texas tend to rely on only one source, while those discussing his actions in Texas have more sources available. Thanks for reading! Karanacs (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • "Bradburn likely first entered Mexico" This seemed puzzling until I read below about his whereabouts before. Perhaps "Born in Virginia, Bradburn likely first entered Mexico"?
    • "Americans and other foreigners must surrender at discretion." Tense.
    • "Bradburn soon joined the forces", "Iturbide soon defected from the Spanish army" Do we know when? BuddingJournalist 02:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the first two issues - thank you for catching them :) I couldn't find an estimated date for when he joined Guerrero. The sources on Bradburn don't say exactly when Iturbide defected either. I could go find a book on Iturbide, but I didn't think it was that critical - the date range was fairly narrow, as Bradburn joined him in Dec 1820 and by August 1821 Mexico was independent. If you think that date would really help understanding of the article, let me know and I can go search for an Iturbide book. Karanacs (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments I made some very minor copyediting tweaks, and have a few questions:

  • "His unit occupied New Orleans from January 24 through March 11." - why 'occupied'? weren't they defending it?
  • "Bradburn intervened in Guerrero's orders at least once, refusing to allow the execution of captured Spanish officers." - 'intervened in...orders' doesn't quite parse.
  • "She was the first Marqise de Ciria and 15th Marshal of Castilla" - Indulge me for a minute; I'm ignorant, but confused here. I presume Marqise is a typo for Marquise (which would probably be better as the Spanish 'Marquesa'), but it seems unlikely that a Mexican woman would be the first carrier of a hereditary title in Spain. I can't figure out what "Marshal of Castilla" could be, either. Do multiple sources attribute these titles to her? Most of what I could find online referred to her more vaguely as a 'titled heiress'.

It's a shame there are no images of him. Seems like political cartoonists would have had a field day with him. Maralia (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and the copyediting!
  • "Occupied" is the correct term - New Orleans was under martial law after the battle ended in January. I can give more info about the state of New Orleans at the time if needed.
  • I changed "intervened in" to "countermanded", which I think makes more sense.
  • The title thing puzzled me too. It appears that these titles originated in Mexico (despite the Castilla), but I couldn't find much info about them. The only source that discussed his wife was the one I used, so I just used the titles as the source presented them. I promised myself I'd take them out if they confused anyone else...so gone!

Karanacs (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed your reply until today. Everything resolved except the 'occupied' bit - per your suggestion, a brief addition about martial law being in effect after the battle would help 'occupied' make sense. One out-of-order comment RE below: 'entered the priesthood' is proper as is. Maralia (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I missed your comment when the ref stuff was added below. I've reworded the sentence to His unit arrived in New Orleans on January 24, just after the battle ended, and remained until martial law ended March 11. Karanacs (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: all images check out fine. Jappalang (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - Leaning towards support, but:
  • link brigadier general and possibly, Mexican Army
  • In note 2, could you specify who Henson is? I know he's in the references, but a name would be nice.
  • In section, Independent Mexico: Bradburn and his wife had one son, who entered the priesthood as a young man. entered priesthood.

Otherwise, it looks great! Ceranthor 02:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck, but are you going to resolve these? Ceranthor 16:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I missed your comments when the reftools stuff below was added. Henson is identified in Note 1 ("biographer Margaret Swett Henson"); I think it's redundant to reidentify her in note 2. I don't see a need to link Mexican Army (the existing article does not mention the army's history), but I have now linked Brigadier General. Thanks for your review! Karanacs (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref comments -- Errors found with WP:REFTOOLS.

  • Edmondson (2000), p. 145. Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Edmondson (2000), p. 151. Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Edmondson (2000), p. 155. Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Henson (1982), p. 105. Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Henson (1982), p. 124. Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • edmondson145 Multiple references are given the same name
  • edmondson151 Multiple references are given the same name
  • edmondson155 Multiple references are given the same name
  • henson105 Multiple references are given the same name
  • henson124 Multiple references are given the same name--TRUCO 22:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are actually errors. All refs are showing up as expected in the references section. Karanacs (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not literal errors, but are reference formatting problems that can be fixed. It also reduces cluttering of ref formatting if ref names are used instead and some refs have the same name even though they are not the exact same reference.--TRUCO 22:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The refs with the same name are the exact same reference. Don't worry - I promise everything is working as intended. Karanacs (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess they are, but it seems redundant to write out <ref name="(content)">(refcontent)</ref> and not use <ref name="(content)"/> later on. But ref formatting is up to speed.--TRUCO 22:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until fixed. The main problem, especially at the opening, is extreme density. It's very hard on the readers.

  • I had to work hard to understand this one: "briefly leading the American volunteers in Mexican revolutionary Francisco Javier Mina's army before joining fellow revolutionary Vicente Guerrero". De-clunk it, to start with, by substituting "in the army of Mexican revolutionary Francisco Javier Mina, before ...". It's uncertain whether Guerrero also ran an army—was it a rival army? Perhaps you can avoid raising these questions with a short additional phrase.
  • Again, it's hard for the reader who isn't familiar with all of these names; we shouldn't have to divert to the Iturbide link to see how he fitted into the picture; and that sentence packs so much in that I'm constipated just reading it --> "In late 1820, Bradburn defected to the Spanish army, but soon helped Agustín de Iturbide to unify the opposition to Spanish authority." Then, he "remained" in the Mexican army, but I lost where he joined it in the first place. My head is spinning.
  • "the state land commissioner"—which state? In Mexico? Most people won't realise that Mexico had a federal system (did it?).
  • "For much of the 19th century, Bradburn was seen as an incompetent tyrant." I hope that's fully verified in the body of the article. Was seen by ... historians? Politicians and/or commentators at the time? In the US or Mexico, or both? A little bit of detail would ease our discomfort, even if you leave the actual citation until later. Tony (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I've rewritten the lead almost entirely. I believe what is left hits the high points of Bradburn's life in a more generic way and doesn't require as much background information as the previous incarnation. I read over the body of the article again, and I think that all the (previously) potentially confusing points in the lead have adequate background information in the body now. Thank you very much for your comments—I forget sometimes that not everyone has gone through Texas history in school. Karanacs (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Yeah, I noticed that the lead was more problematic than the rest. Tony (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, no images. Karanacs (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - all my concerns have been addressed. Slight oppose

  • "...Bradburn spent his early adulthood as a merchant..." seems awkward to me. Perhaps "...Bradburn's first career was a merchant."?
  • "... briefly leading the American volunteers in Mexican revolutionary Francisco Javier Mina's army before joining fellow revolutionary Vicente Guerrero." The "fellow" seems a bit odd to me, suggest just eliminating it.
  • "He earned the enmity of the local settlers for opposing the state land commissioner's efforts to give titles..." do you mean state or would "local" be better?
  • Your lead says "He likely first entered Mexico in 1812 as part of the Gutiérrez-Magee Expedition fighting Spanish control of Texas." which isn't quite as clear as your statement in the body about the 1812 expedition, if it's only likely, you need to make it clear that in the lead.
  • Ooh. WP:EGG (a pet peeve) "... British troops were preparing [[Battle of New Orleans|to invade New Orleans]]. Counter intuitive.
  • Explain briefly "filibuster"
  • "... and sent Bradburn as a courier to the United States." I think you mean "envoy" here more than courier.
  • "He reappeared in Mexican records in 1828..." I believe it's properly "reappears" since the records still exist.
  • When was immigration from the US to Texas allowed?
  • Egg again : "... tariff exemptions to [[Old Three Hundred|the first colony]] established by..." Needs to be reworded.
  • "Bradburn's commander sent Austin a sharply-worded letter which, according to Henson,..." who is Henson? And why is his opinion important?
  • "In January 1832, Bradburn received a letter listing 10 men in his jurisdiction who wished to separate Texas from Mexico." Seems awkward to me. Perhaps "In January 1832, Bradburn received a letter listing 10 men in his jurisdiction who favored separating Texas from Mexico."
  • "Conviction on this charge would certainly lead to Travis's execution." the surrounding sentences are in past tense, suggest rewording to make this sentence also.
  • Need to explain what "Texian" is, not just link to it.
  • Egg again "... Santa Anna (now president of Mexico) [[Battle of San Jacinto|was captured]] and all Mexican troops..."
Most of these are minor, but the WP:EGG ones need to be resolved before I can support. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ealdgyth, for being so picky :) I believe I've fixed all of your points except one. I did not explain Texian. This is the pre-Civil War century version of "Texan". Since most articles don't explain things like Texan, or Californian, I don't think we really need to do so here either (plus, I have no idea how to it rather than Texian–people who lived in Texas–... and that didn't sound right to me). Karanacs (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments Very good article, definitely leaning towards support but would like to see the outstanding points above acknowledged, as well as a few of my own:

  • I notice the lack of a picture of the man has been commented upon; are there none even in the full-length biography on him?
  • Regardless of whether or not there are any pictures of him, I would've expected an infobox.
  • "...became the current town of Liberty, Texas" - I think this would be better expressed as "...later became Liberty, Texas" or something like that.
  • "With Bradburn's arrival, tariff collections began for the first time" - most things that begin are happening for the first time... ;-) Can we rephrase to lose the tautology? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments! I have fixed the two prose issues that you noted. There are no images available of Bradburn, even in the biography. Also, infoboxes are not required, and since there is no image and little else in the infobox parameters that would be relevant, I chose not to include them. Karanacs (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I know infoboxes are not required but they're pretty ubiquitous on generals, and not all of them have pictures by any means. However, I won't oppose on that point - well done for very worthwhile article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to all the recent reviewers on the delayed response to their comments. I was off-wiki unexpectedly for a week due to computer and health issues; I hope I've now addressed all the issues. Thank you very much for your thoughtful reviews. Karanacs (talk) 21:37, 13 March 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 Raul654 05:05, 11 March 2009 [33].

Amanita muscaria

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is comprehensive and of the standard of other successful candidates I have worked on. I will be happy to address points raised. It has been peer reviewed and had input from several other editors who have offered valuable input. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref formatting/dab comments from Truco (talk · contribs) -- Ref issues found with WP:REFTOOLS script (copy and pasted here).

  • The following ref names are used twice for different refs, so that needs to be fixed accordingly.
  • fungimap Multiple references are given the same name
  • Ott76 Multiple references are given the same name
I have addressed the dablinks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed both cases of ref names above. One was two separate refs, the other the same (but only one converted to cite format). Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref formatting and dabs found up to speed.--TRUCO 01:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first is the website of two mycologists who are otherwise notable in the field and providing an organized and accessible summary of knowledge.
  • the second is a transcription of a published journal article. I believed cite rules indicate the cite should be of the web place not merely the journal. Good point about permission above. I will look into it. OK, let's stick with the book reference.

Comments from Sasata

  • "...in Switzerland is tsapi de diablhou, or "Devil's hat"." (not sure I think it needs an 'or', but added 'translated as' )
  • "...ha-ma chün, or "toad mushroom"" (not sure I think it needs an 'or', but added 'meaning' )
  • "Interestingly, the toad does not carry a negative connotation in Chinese culture..." NPOV (removed. I had pondered that one before)
  • "Wasson proposed this was due to its being a shamanic and also taboo object and hence unable to be named specifically in ancient Celtic culture." I don't follow the association between non-negative connotations in Chinese and ancient Celtic culture, implied at the beginning of the sentence. (I reorganized so Wasson's note on taboo follows the association with toad; the chinese segement follows better after the explanation - it was an aside really)
  • "The woodpecker of Mars is another unusual folk name." In what country? (that has well and truly eluded me! Do you think it better removed than incomplete?)
  • "...perpetuated its maligned reputation..." (done)
  • "(= Amanita regalis (Fr.) Michael)" Author names in small font here but nowhere else. (I removed authority for regalis as others aren't listed either)
  • Am wondering if the conclusions from this ([PMID 18547823]) recent paper should be mentioned in the Classification section. (whoa, interesting. I will take that to the talk page)
  • "... and North American populations. (Alaska contains examples of all three clades, leading to the hypothesis that this was the center of diversification of this species.)" Don't think it's correct to have a separate sentence parenthetically like this. (parentheses removed)
  • "Alaska contains examples of all three clades," Rather, they have species from all three clades. Probably need a better word than "contain", as well. Also, is there a source for this hypothesis that is mentioned? (ref 33 covers the paragraph. This is one of those situations where repeating the same ref at the end of each sentence looks odd I guess. PS: Tried to reword it)
  • "The study also looked at four named varieties of this species; var. alba, var. ..." Think the semicolon should be a colon. (yep. done)
  • "Although the amount and ratio of chemical compounds per mushroom varies widely from region to region and season to season, further confusing the issue." Not a proper sentence. (fixed)
  • Wikilink, wikt, or define globose. (linked to wikt)
  • The gill attachment isn't mentioned in the description. (done (how'd I miss that?))
  • Ref 36 (Rogers) has "pp. p. 140.", probably from putting pp. in the citation template. (fixed)
  • I don't like the figure caption "spores under microscopy", but I'm not sure exactly why. The construction just doesn't sound right.

Maybe "A. muscaria spores magnified with a microscope", but that sounds clumsy too. I'll let you figure it out :) (changed to more precis 'spores under 1000x magnification')

  • Could you put a citation for the spore size; another book I have gives slightly different sizes and I think it's important to cit measurements like this. (good point, I opened a discussion on the article talk page)
  • Perhaps link iodine to Melzer's reagent for more amyloid info. (done)
  • I think it should be mentioned somewhere in the text that the species is mycorrhizal. (done)
  • "(3-hydroxy-5-aminomethy-1-isoxazole, an unsaturated cyclic hydroxamic acid) " --> wikilink to unsaturated. And methy should be methyl. (done x2)
  • "When sliced thinly, or chopped into thin dice and boiled in plentiful water until thoroughly cooked, it seems to be thoroughly detoxified." Perhaps replace a thoroughly? (just removed, maybe no need for an adverb there after all)
  • "The German physician and naturalist Georg Heinrich von Langsdorff wrote the earliest published account on how to detoxify this mushroom in 1823." In what book?
Tried to find this out myself, but no luck. Not that important. Sasata (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 20 and 65 (and perhaps more, haven't check them all): Titles shouldn't be all caps (even if they were in the original). At least I read this somewhere else, correct me if I'm wrong. (ref 65 is german, nouns are capitalised. will check others)
  • There are several instances of Amanita muscaria not being italicized in the references. (I think I got them all..)
  • "The authors Arora and Rubel advocate..." (done)
  • "... as a several other popular edible species, " (done)
  • There's both Brit and Am spellings of color in the text. (gosh, I hadn't thought about that - ok US it is as we have -ized elsewhere)
  • References from journals have periods at the end, but those from books with page numbers don't—shouldn't they be consistent? (Picky I know, but this is FAC, right?)
Comments from J Milburn
  • "and South America, where it usually occurs under introduced pine trees." Ref? (oops. done)
  • "The toxins in A. muscaria are water soluble. When sliced thinly, or chopped into thin dice and boiled in plentiful water until thoroughly cooked, it seems to be thoroughly detoxified.[65]" Short paragraph. (combined)
  • "It is also consumed as a food in parts of Japan. The most well-known current use as an edible mushroom is in Nagano Prefecture, Japan. There, it is primarily salted and pickled.[112]" Very short paragraph. (combined)
  • I was going to add this image (PD, artist died over 100 years ago) to the art section, but I now see the referencing is a little weak on it. That web source doesn't specifically mention A. muscaria or even Amanita at all, but it does mention a couple of other genera. The last few lines of the section are unreferenced. (I read over the art section a few times, and I think the last two setences are a bit off-topic and sound speculatory, so I just removed them, and then sunk that bit into section above)
Comments from Peter G Werner
  • The lead needs to be rewritten to fit the guidelines of Wikipedia:Lead section. Basically, all novel facts stated in the lead, but not in the body of the article need to be incorporated into the appropriate article sections. Once this is done, the whole lead should be rewritten so that it is a summary of the body of the article. (the relatively less important not on 1,3 diolein has been moved to the body, and ectomycorrhizal nature added to body of text. All points in kead are now in text. Are there other salient points in body you think need be in the lead? I added some recent genetic material - should I add more?)
  • I also took out the part about the Koryak, etc, since there's no need for such a specific point to be in the lead, and I've made the statements in the lead more general. There is still entire sections of the article that need some summarization in the lead, but that can wait until the article is in the final stage of FA work.
  • The illustration of spores under "Description" should be replaced with a better picture of spores and other hymenium features. The illustration should also be better placed than it is now. I will try to supply a picture like this, though in my area A. muscaria is a little past its peak season and I don't have any dried material handy. Nonetheless, I'll see what I can come up with. (thx +++. bit early here)
  • Many of the illustrations are redundant, in particular, we have multiple pictures of single A. muscaria. Illustrations that get more to the point of what is described in the sections, or at least illustrations showing a variety of growth stages of A. muscaria would better serve the article. A picture of an unopened A. muscaria "egg" would be a particularly good addition. (I removed one just now. There are two others I am vacillating on in the Distribution and habitat and Psychoactive use sections. I have been tramping around here after rain in the vain hope one pops up early so we can get an egg shot - with no success thus far.)
  • Support - besides the possible (silly) implication of the women in the "Psychoactive use" being put in a potentially bad spot through juxtaposition, I don't see any real problems with the page. It is late, so, I could be missing things. But yeah. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - quite well written and organized; however, one comment: I don't think the reader should have to get all the way to the 4th sentence before hitting the word mushroom -- how about using that instead of "fungus" in the first sentence? Looie496 (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(groan, this issue is very very tricky as the mushroom is the fruiting body, whereas the term 'fungus' can refer to the organism. This is always a headache for these articles....I do see where you're coming from though) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Significant image concerns as follows:

  • File:Amanita muscaria spores.jpg — is Madjack74 John Roper? The pictures were uploaded to the Flickr account on the same day as to the Commons.[34][35] John Roper claims copyright on the photos. Madjack74 has only uploaded Roper's Mushroom photo set; Roper has other sets, including a nature set taken with the same Nikon D40 camera. Either one is a stalker of the other (in which case, Madjack74 seems more likely as the stalker), or they are the same person. This needs to be cleared up.
  • File:Basket of Amanita muscaria.png — from his or her contributions, Pixel ;-) is obviously not William Rubel. This requires an OTRS, since Rubel copyrighted the contents of his site, 2006.
  • File:Ruebezahl (Moritz von Schwind).jpg — please point to the page that is hosting the image, not directly to the picture

The last is niggling; the first two should, however, be resolved before the article is promoted to be Wikipedia's best work. Jappalang (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The spore image has been removed due to questions on status. Our expert Peter G Werner was unhappy with the quality of the image and actualy went to a lab with some fly agaric yesterday and will be uploading a better one soon.
I note here that William Rubel is at least aware of the image and doesn't appear to have a problem with its use. I can try and contact him and get his permission in the proper format, alternatively as he has an account can he document this on the commons page? i.e. sign as his account? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be preferable if Rubel or his representative enters an OTRS. If his account is to document this on the Commons page, then either his user account has to be validated, or his website has to state his Wikipedia account (in Contacts or elsewhere) to prove the connection. Although more convenient, I would discourage this if he desires privacy (protection of real-life identities, although this seems moot with the revelation here...); hence the recommendation of an OTRS. Jappalang (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have removed for the image for time being until the OTRS is sorted out - can always be readded once proper authorisation is obtained. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Calisber's action, the article has no image issues as of this version. Hopefully, the OTRS goes through and the image can be re-added later without concerns. Jappalang (talk) 13:35, 11 March 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 Raul654 05:05, 11 March 2009 [36].

Operation Cobra

Nominator(s): Eurocopter (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all criteria and would worth promoting it to FA. The article passed an A-Class review within the Military history WikiProject last month. Since then, it undergone a thorough copyedit in order to be prepared for FAC. Eurocopter (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional support, provided that another reviewer (perhaps one of the MilHist people) can vouch for the content. Looks impressive. Prose is compelling.
Changed according to your recomandations. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Operation Cobra commenced on 25 July with a concentrated bombardment from thousands of Allied aircraft. – (Lede, second paragraph) When I think of "bombardment" I think of artillery, not aircraft. You should change this to "bombing".
  • "Rhino" modifications were made to some M4 Sherman and M5A1 Stuart tanks, and M10 Tank Destroyers – (Planning, fifth paragraph) Change the phrase "M10 Tank Destroyers" to "M10 Wolverine tank destroyers" (Note the lowercase "tank destroyers").
  • German positions to the east of Caen were shelled by 400 guns – (Operations Goodwood and Atlantic, first paragraph) Change "400 guns" to "400 artillery guns".
  • around 600 Allied fighter-bombers attacked strongpoints and enemy artillery along a 300-yard (270 m) wide strip of ground. – (Initial attack and breakthrough 25–27 July, first paragraph) Wherre was this strip of ground? You don't have to give a geographic location, you can just give it relative to the planned front line.
  • German tanks, supporting infantry and 88 mm guns, and VII Corps gained only 2,200 yards (2,000 m) during the rest of the day. – (Initial attack and breakthrough 25–27 July, second paragraph) Replace "and" with an em dash.
  • the entire Normandy front was now collapsing; a fact anticipated by the Allied command. – (Aftermath, second paragraph) When was this anticipated by Allied command? Presumably when they were planning the operation. I think you should include that, or leave out that bit altogether. If you dont' want to say when say "as anticipated by Allied command" instead.
All in all a great article, and one I much enjoyed reading.Pattont/c 12:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks.--Pattont/c 13:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think you should include a summary section like in Operation Winter Storm and Operation Uranus.--Pattont/c 12:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Objection. With all due respect I think that's impossible - we have very little information regarding German units state and strength (we barely now all the units involved in the operation). All the details regarding the forces involved are incorporated in Planning and Battle sections, like in the FA sister articles Operation Epsom and Operation Tractable. The "Comparison of forces" section within Operation Uranus, is actually the Planning section of that article. Adding an additional Comparison of forces section in Operation Cobra would mean interference with and repetition of information already posted in the planning section. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine i see you have link tot he order of battle section.--Pattont/c 19:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for understanding :). --Eurocopter (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support recognicion--Pattont/c 19:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object The article has a number of errors and the comments above have introduced new ones. The Cobra operation was absolutely *not* expected to lead to a complete collapse of the German front in Normandy; several sources (Bradley, Zaloga, Weigley, D'Este, Blumenson) will substantiate that. The attack had a limited objective which was exceeded; that outcome was a surprise. "Bombardment" is perfectly acceptable terminology for aircraft bombing - consider the fact that USAAF bomber units were known as "Bombardment Wings" at one point, or see the wikipedia category "Bombardment units of the US Air Force". The M10 Tank Destroyer was never known as the Wolverine in US service, as discussed in that article. The term "M10 tank destroyer" is more accurate. The article as it stands is a good example of undue weight to minority points of view. For example, it credits Montgomery with the initial plan, a view shared by few authors (see the list above). Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply What we are stating in the article is that Cobra was a "breakout offensive". We never stated that Cobra was expected to lead to a complete collapse of the German front, but it eventually led to the collapse of the front (so the collapse of the front, was a result of Cobra). As we kindly explained you several times, it is not enough to make such snide comments, you have to make yourself the changes according to your sources - or perhaps you are expecting us to make the changes according to your POV? I'm afraid that's impossible, so if you really want to improve something within this article come up with detailed and sourced comments regarding what you consider errors, so we would compare them with our sources and find a middle way acceptable for everyone. Again, such comments do not help improve the article at all, and the sources always briefly mentioned by you are not necessary more reliable than ours (Hastings, Williams, Wilmot, Bercuson, Van der Vat, etc). --Eurocopter (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing "snide" about my comments, which are based on reading the US official history, Bradley's memoirs, and other well-regarded sources. Kindly discuss edits, not editors. The article as it stands has some serious weaknesses. It meets the formal, structural requirements of wikipedia. But its dependence on weak sources makes it less accurate than it could be. My attempts to reintroduce better sources have been reverted and, although this seems the wrong place to debate that, this is a good reason to cast doubt on the article's fate as a potential featured article. Perhaps others familiar with US operations in Normandy can contribute better than I; I've long since lost patience with it. My apologies for that. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you state that the article has serious weaknesses, you have to mention them and come-up with sourced corrections (it is not enough to come and say "the article has serious weaknesses"). Your additions of sourced information were never reverted (as a proof, see the many citations existent throughout the article from the historians mentioned by you above). Stating that our sources are weak, is extremely POV considering that we used many of the most respectable WWII historians. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have noted many of them on the talk page; your comment is disingenuous. The article as it stands fails to make use of the most important source (the US official history by Blumenson, which I have on order) but makes heavy use of lesser-quality sources. The sources you've used are clearly POV in that they given undue weight to minority positions that are not supported by the most highly-respected sources, and are flatly contradicted in some places by first-hand sources such as Bradley's own memoirs. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two months ago when you came-up with decent comments, we always adressed them and made efforts to compare/combine sources and post the most accurate facts. Let's not forget that you are the only one making such comments/claims, while we are at least five editors trying to contribute constructively. Your comments are always something like "Fascinating, well-sourced, and full of POV and accuracy problems.", completely inconstructive. If you really have something to object, mention the errors and post sources that will support your claims. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what the US called them they are almost exclusivly known now as M10 wolverines.--Pattont/c 15:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect - please consult the M10 article or any good reference on the vehicle. DMorpheus (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a fundamental problem with an article about a US operation that relies mostly on the heavily-criticized British official history, but is not based at all upon the US official history. Once I get my copy of Blumenson I will be editing the article more fundamentally, but for now it would be a travesty to elevate this article to FA. Kindly refrain from personal attacks. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heavily criticized by who? By you? Maybe US official history is a bit pro US, so the British one would be the most NPOV. As I said several times, if we compare sources and underline problems, we can improve something (I appreciate your edits/corrections made this evening in the article and agree with them - see, it wasn't so hard). --Eurocopter (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: DMorpheus has made one valid point: changing the name of the M10 tank destroyer in this article to that of a British nickname applied to it is anachronistic.
As for the comment regarding the article being heavily dependant on L.F. Ellis' work on Normandy; that is fictious. Ellis is mentioned three times all in relation to British operations and what the objective of the Second Army landing was! This is really not the place to be discussing personnel feelings on sources and i feel that you are using that excuse to make a mockery of this procedure - you have had months to be co-operative however you have shown little intrest other, like Eurocopter has said, throwing in snide comments. You say we should discuss edits and not editors but this is exactly what you are doing suggesting people have wasted there own free time when you alone are right. I would kindly remind you about the short discussion we had on your talk page regarding this.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes US troops called them tank destroyeds (TDs) but nowadays they are almost exclusivly known as wolverines, and most readers who have heard of them will have heard this name.--Pattont/c 12:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Patton while i can agree that most people will know them by the nickname i dont think the wiki should be the place to promote what essentially is myth.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Heavily criticized by who? By you? Maybe US official history is a bit pro US, so the British one would be the most NPOV."
The Official British history (Ellis) has been harshly criticized by Blumenson (the US Army's official historian for the Normandy campaign) and Carlo D'Este as "court history". Others also. As for the bias of the US official history, it was recently described by Zaloga as the still the best source on the operation. No one can claim any source is completely free of bias or error, but some are better than others, and I remind you again that this was a wholly US operation. Fortunately the article doesn't rely on Ellis as much as I wrongly stated; I'll have a look at Williams as well, and I got Blumenson over the weekend so I will begin re-editing soon.
Enigma, I believe you are correct that the M10 "wolverine" name is basically a myth that arose long after the war. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked your addition - listing a few historians does not support "most sources", and I think if a long list of cites is felt necessary to support a statement it often indicates the statement is either wrong or at best contentious. Every source has its POV, and we should present all significant perspectives equally. Having said that, there is undoubtedly controversy over the campaign (caused largely by the self-serving and contradictory writings of many of its participants after the war), so perhaps if we need to go into that it could be in a footnote or a separate section at the end of the article. Someone also proposed we write an article dedicated to the different spins on the campaign, which might be even better. EyeSerenetalk 08:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That 'someone' was me ;) . "Most historians" is indeed supported - four of the six historians cited in the planning section support what I wrote; one is neutral; one doesn't. Significantly, the one opposing source is a biography, not a campaign history. DMorpheus (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image concerns as follows:

  • File:Cobra Coutances.jpg requires a link to where the image is stored on the National Archives or, preferably, lists its ARC identifier. Right now, it is pointing at the Archives' main page.
    Have changed the source information to the website where it was located, website there states its from the archives.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please find out from the National Archives on the qualifier for this to be public domain per below. Jappalang (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The source is no longer the National Archives, although the website states that is where the photo came from. I have looked around the archvies website and cannot find it. However the permission used is the following: "This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain."
    Surely then it is in the public domain?
    That PD Army template is a general application and is no guarantee of the status of images in the Archives. Please take a look at this deprecated template on Commons (previously where it was assumed everything on Archives was okay), commons:Template:NARA. To repeat, the Archives state that there are images not of public domain hosted on them.[37] As stated below, does File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg look like it was taken by the military? It was not. There were a few wartime newspaper journalists who tagged around the army HQs, taking shots for the newspapers back home. The Archives host some of their images as well. Contacting them for the ARC to verify the copyright status of these images is not an unreasonable request. Jappalang (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the very first FAC facing such tiring image issues.. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The National Archives is not a guarantor of public domain images. File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg is on the National Archives, but is copyrighted to Joe Rosenthal of AP. Image archives like the National Archives and Library of Congress do not guarantee the copyright status of their images. They try their best, but ultimately cautioned all users to exercise their own discretion and evaluate the images accordingly. See the explicitness on http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/195_copr.html for example. Basically, they are saying "we have lots of images here, most of which, we believe, are in the public domain; however, it is all up to you to ensure that the images here are free of copyright." You can contact the webmasters for the ARC identifier of those images, or contact the Archives. Check out how through the use of the ARC (and templates), File:Nixon 30-0316a.jpg is verfiably PD. Jappalang (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are any of the editors contacting the Archives to find the ARC numbers or the authors? Jappalang (talk)

11:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've already done this 5 days ago, but the process is quite slow and I should receive a response in two to five weeks from now on. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref comments -- Errors found using WP:REFTOOLS.

  • Greiss, p. 312 | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Greiss, p. 316 | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Bradley, p. 272| Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Trew, p. 49 | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Williams, p. 185 | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Williams, p. 181 | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Hastings, p. 236 | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Williams, p. 204 | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Williams204 | Multiple references are given the same name--TRUCO 22:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reference formatting found up to speed.--TRUCO 22:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Vivid, robust writing. Let's remember you when we need military nominations to be air-brushed. Could you manage a little reviewing here too?

  • Can't we have the First Army? It may be used without a deictic in the military, but it's kind of weird to us outsiders; I guess I got used to it.
  • No hyphen after "-ly"; please see MoS.
  • A tiny bit better than this: "Progress was slow on the first day, but once the thin defensive crust had been broken, opposition started to crumble." would be "Progress was slow on the first day, but opposition started to crumble once the thin defensive crust had been broken." Same issue here—bumpety-bump:
"To facilitate the Allied build-up in France and to secure room for further expansion, the deep water port of Cherbourg on the western flank of the American sector, and the historic town of Caen in the British and Canadian sector to the east, were early objectives." The sentence ends up being clunky to read. Problem solved by removing the last two commas, yes?
  • The noun plus -ing issue:
"The original plan for the Normandy campaign envisioned strong offensive efforts in both sectors, with Lieutenant-General Sir Miles Dempsey's British Second Army securing Caen and the area south of it,[7] and General Omar Bradley's United States First Army "wheeling round" to the Loire.[8]". Here's a solution. :-)
  • I Corps' at para opening is strange to all but the initiated; guess it's pronounced "one corps", is it? Readers will have to pause on it to get it. Possibly "The initial attempt by ..."?
  • Here's another clunky sentence; it's one of the few things you might watch in your writing:
"The efficiency of Cherbourg's defenders, which largely consisted of four battlegroups formed from the remnants of units that had retreated up the Cotentin peninsula, was extremely low, and the port's defences had been designed principally to meet an attack from the sea." Possibly make it:
"Cherbourg's defenders were not set up for robust performance, consisting largely of four battlegroups formed from the remnants of units that had retreated up the Cotentin peninsula; the port's defences had been designed principally to meet an attack from the sea." I'm unsure I've got it right (especially the "robust performance", which is an attempt to replace the vague "low efficiency"), but you could correct it with your knowledge.
  • "from 6 June – 20 July 1944"—MoS prefers either the en dash without "from", or "from 6 June to 20 ...".

Yumm. Great read. I haven't looked beyond the writing (1a) in terms of the criteria. Tony (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 10:43, 7 March 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 Raul654 05:05, 11 March 2009 [39].

Benjamin Morrell

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk)

Here is the story of an enigmatic character, largely forgotten now but who made quite a stir in his time. First American to cross the Antarctic Circle? Perhaps. First man to land on Bouvet Island? Possibly. Discoverer of New South Greenland? Definitely not. The biggest liar in the Pacific? So people said of him. Now YOU can decide.

Grateful thanks to Ruhrfisch for another excellent map, to Ealdgyth for providing extra sources, and to others for a helpful peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs and external links (toolbox)
  • ..are found up to speed.
Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS)
  • The following refs are duplicated, a ref name should be used instead.
  • Gould, p. 255
  • H.R.Mill, p. 105
  • Gould, p. 281
  • The following ref names are used more than once for different refs.
Yeah, but this <ref name= SH> is used more than once to name a ref, as does the other one mentioned above.--₮RUCӨ 01:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry I missed these, they have been fixed, too. Brianboulton (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - for another engaging and beautifully written article. I think I have decided but WP:NPOV prevents me from expressing my opinion. Graham Colm Talk 23:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support In the interest of full disclosure, I made one of the maps in this, and peer-reviewed it. All of my concerns were addressed in the peer review and I think it is an excellent article that meets all of the FA citeria. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review as follows:

Just the slight niggle above. Jappalang (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure it is from his book - Morrell, Benjamin (1832). A Narrative of Four Voyages...etc. New York: J & J Harper. Retrieved 17 December 2009. Benjamin Morrell. - but will let Brian weigh in on this before adding it to the map. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was BOLD and added it to the map (for now at least). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You were correct, and I have added the page numbers for good measure. Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I did one of the peer reviews of this excellent article, and all of my concerns have been addressed. I'm assuming that the one remaining image question raised above has been (or will soon be) addressed. Finetooth (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I read the article and found it well-written, and well-sourced. I detected no significant problems and think that it should be promoted to FA status. Ruslik (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes
UNESCO (ref 44) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even know UNESCO was an abbreviation, dimbo that I am. Anyway, I've fixed it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 14 is a book, right? Please format it as such.
  • It's one of "those", I suppose. Micronesia Seminar is a research-pastoral unit founded by the Catholic Church in 1972, run by the Jesuit Order since 1992. Its main mission is community education; it has a staff of 10 and appears to have a large library of books, theses, dissertations etc. That's not a university pedigree, but not a bad one, either. The information cited to this source is routine stuff; if you still have doubts about it, I'll reconsider its use. Brianboulton (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was leaning yes before, just wanted confirmation. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I read the article carefully and the only errors I found were two missing spaces in the references (which I added), and the fact the some of the book references have periods after the author names while others don't. Also, two authors' first and middle names are given as initials rather than being spelled out (Keynes, R.D and Ridgely, J.V.). An impressive and interesting article. Sasata (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I was under the impression the citation format had to be consistent. Sasata (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: Keynes calls himself R.D. on the relevant book cover. His full names are Richard Darwin, but he doesn't use those names on this book. I've no idea what the "C" in John C. Kricher stands for, but that's what he calls himself. Similarly, I have no further information about J.V. Ridgely. Brianboulton (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fairly picky comment. The article says "As a reminder of his brief Antarctic exploits, Morrell Island, at 59°27'S, 27°19'W, is the alternative name for Thule Island in the Southern Thule sub-group of the South Sandwich Islands.[62][63]". I think it is highly likely that the island is named after this Morrell, but the references given don't actually state that and I'm slightly surprised that I can't find any reliable independent source to back up this claim. I've found references to possibly fictional "Morrell Islands" that he may have thus named, but nothing to specifically link this Benjamin Morrell with the island in Southern Thule. It would be nice to know who gave the name "Morrell Island", when and why. Was it just because he was generally navigating in that area, or does he have any specific link with that actual island? 86.161.42.191 (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry, when I wrote the above I hadn't read the bit earlier in the article "His presence there is corroborated by his descriptions of the harbour on Thule Island, confirmed by the early 20th century expeditions.[22][23]". I guess in an ideal world it would be interesting to know if he named the island after himself at that time, or if someone else did it later... 86.161.42.191 (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment (another one that you might feel is rather picky!). Under "Early life and career" it says:
"... on his first voyage his ship, carrying a cargo of flour, was intercepted off St John's, Newfoundland... Wasp was bound for the South Shetland Islands ... Morrell, who had evidently heard stories of these islands, was keen to go there. On the ensuing voyage he was involved in a series of "remarkable adventures"..."
Then there is a heading "Four voyages". On first reading I stumbled at this point because I was unclear if these "four voyages" were to include the several "voyages" already mentioned. 86.161.42.191 (talk) 04:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first line of the article reads: "Benjamin Morrell (5 July 1795 – 1839) was an American sealing captain and explorer who between 1823 and 1831 made a series of voyages, mainly to the Southern Ocean and the Pacific Islands, which are recorded in a colourful memoir A Narrative of Four Voyages." From the start that fixes the "four voyages" within those dates. "Early life" deals with what he did before those dates and before he was a captain. Since the Early life section is dated throughout, there should be no difficulty in following the chronology. Brianboulton (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you can work it out. It's just a question of whether the "stumble" that I experienced while doing so can be alleviated somehow. On first reading you don't instantly recall the exact details of dates mentioned further up the page. It's not a big deal though. 81.129.130.147 (talk) 14:07, 11 March 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 SandyGeorgia 17:39, 10 March 2009 [40].

Hilary of Chichester

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk

I am nominating this for featured article because... I've hit every source I can think of, it's been through GAN, PR, and two rounds of copyediting. As usual, copyediting by Malleus. Hilary isn't really a saintly bishop, but he wasn't a bad boy either. Just a typical 12th century bishop and royal judge. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its odd seeing a nom from Ealdgyth here ;)
Dabs and external links are found up to speed, though, some book refs from multiple pages have "p." instead of "pp.", which need to be fixed accordingly.--₮RUCӨ 00:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref formatting is found up to speed. Who's gonna check this article for sources? ;)--₮RUCӨ 02:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Mainly prose:-

Fixed per your suggestions Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can "for providing for" be reworded a little more euphoniously?
"supporting" is now used. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life
    • Another slightly ambiguous sentence: "Hilary served as a clerk for Henry of Blois, Bishop of Winchester as well as Dean of Christchurch in Twynham, Hampshire, probably receiving both offices through the influence of Henry of Blois."Suggest by placing a comma after "Bishop of Winchester" and replacing "as well" with "and".
Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be "Hilary (not "he") was dean by 1139." The last "he" was Henry of Blois...
fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...but the sentence needs attention anyway, with two unconnected statements joined by an "and".
actually, they are connected. Clarified to read "Christchurch was a collegiate church of secular clergy, or clergy who were not monks,[5] and Hilary was dean of the church by 1139." as it's christchurch he was dean of. Clarified further up too. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As Dean of Christchurch he restored..." Got to be "Hilary restored" - it's a new paragraph. However, "Hilary ordered the writing..." can be "He ordered..."
fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence beginning "Unsuccessful as a candidate..." repeats the ambiguity in the lead. The sentence needs reworking, e.g. "Hilary was unsuccessful as a candidate for the archbishopric of York against Henry Murdac in 1147, but Pope Eugene III chose to compensate him by appointing him to Chichester." It would also be better to use the "see of Chichester" link here rather than later in the paragraph.
Fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stephen's reign
    • "Hilary was one of the bishops who made peace between Theobald and Stephen after the council, which took the form of negotiations after Theobald's return to England." Would this be the Reims council? And does "which" refer to this council, or to the peace-making?
yes, it is. Hopefully clarified. Changed to "Hilary was one of the bishops who made peace between Theobald and Stephen after the council at Reims, helping in the negotiations after Theobald's return to England."
    • Last sentence is awkwardly phrased and grammatically suspect. Suggest tweak to this version: "Theobald settled himself at Hugh Bigod's castle of Framlingham; negotiations between the royal party and the archbishop's party resulted in the king yielding, and in the restoration of the archbishop to his lands."
Fixed per your suggestion. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Henry II's reign
    • Could the phrase "canon lawyer" be explained?
linked and quickie explanation provided. "known as a canon lawyer, or someone trained in ecclesiastical law"
    • "Hilary served as a royal justice in 1156, and was with the king in Normandy from late 1156 to April 1157." I'm not sure what the second part of the sentence is referring to, nor of its relationship to the first part.
"Hilary served in England as a royal justice in 1156,[2] and then was with the king in Normandy from late 1156 to April 1157." Basically, we're tracing his movements. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The next year in 1163 at a council held at Westminster, as part of the king's growing quarrel with Becket over criminal clerks, Henry attempted to have all the English bishops to swear to uphold the old customs of England." There is a redundancy in "The next year in 1163...". Also, I'm uncertain whether "as part of the king's growing quarrel..." is referring to the council, or to Henry's attemped chicanery.
Changed to "The next year at a council held at Westminster which was one of the stages in the king's growing quarrel with Becket..." is that better? Westminster was just one step in the quarrel... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who were the "magnates"?
Now reads "Henry tried to get the lay barons and bishops..." Magnates is a way of NOT saying "aristocracy" or "nobility" Barons comes close. English noblity is .. odd. There is no "noble class" really, and magnates just is another way of saying "leading laymen" .. which I suppose I could say if you prefer that. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"lay baron" is no more comprehensible to the uninitiated, I'm afraid, than "magnate". The link to magnate is pretty useless. If they weren't nobles, could they be described as "leading commoners", or "powerful commoners"? Brianboulton (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it's now "leading laymen". I dont want to use "commoners" since that implies a class concept that's really foreign for the middle ages. they weren't "commoners" (that would be the peasants at this point). The real dichotomy here is between the high level ecclesiastics and the high level non-ecclesiastics. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...to persuade the archbishop to compromise..." I think this needs extending, e.g. "...to compromise on the issue of canon law" (or whatever makes better sense).
Changed to "...archbishop to compromise over issue of criminous clerks and the matter of custom,..." which is a very sketchy explanation of the becket dispute. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, speaking on behalf of the illiterati, terms like "criminous clerks and matters of custom" are too strong meat for us. Why not just "...archbishop to modify his position", or some such? Brianboulton (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You wanted specifics above (pokes Brian) I changed it to "modify his position" (which to me isn't much different than "compromise" but...) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are not major points, and I have enjoyed another instalment of life with the bishops. Will be happy to support when these matters are cleared.

(and forgot to sign ABOVE) Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to provide another "As the bishops turn" episode... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support subject to clarification on two matters outstanding from above list. All other issues resolved. (They were a weaselly lot, these old bishops, weren't they?) Brianboulton (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I peer reviewed this a while ago and find it much improved and fully meeting the FA criteria. My only quibble is that the "Notes" section has only one note, so should be "Note" (I think). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: thank goodness for freedom of panorama in United Kingdom; there are no issues with the three user-taken images in the article. Clear. Jappalang (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
  • The comma after Henry of Blois in the lede is a bit confusing ... when I read the sentence from the start, I want to think that it's a serial comma. I'd suggest adding "who was" after the comma in order to set off his titles. Ex. "Henry of Blois, who was the Bishop of Winchester and brother of King Stephen of England." The same goes for the sentence in the Early Life section.
Done Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second-to-last sentence of the first paragraph of the Early Life section is a bit awkward because of all the auxiliary clauses. I suggest splitting it into two sentences.
Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second sentence of the second paragraph of Early Life, I'm a bit confused. Is it a history of the church building, or the church as an institution? Also, does the history still exist or is it the church building that still exists?
It's the book that still exists, clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first sentence of the Stephen's Reign section, is Robert de Bethune the Bishop of Hereford, or are they two separate people?
yes, he is, clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Stephen's Reign, why were Stephen and Theobald at odds? Was it because Theobald held his duty to the Pope higher than fealty to Stephen, or was there another reason? Some context might be helpful.
No one really knows WHY Stephen told Theobald not to go. Saltman (the most modern biographer of Theobald) leans towards Stephen's desire to control the church as his predecessors had. I've seen other reasons too. They weren't at odds until Stephen told Theobald he couldn't go, and then that sorta started the problem. I'm trying to not get bogged down into a lot of details that aren't germane to the article (the quarrel eventually degenerated into Theobald refusing to crown Stephen's son and further issues that Hilary wasn't involved in...). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest a wikilink for Exchequer.
done Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second-to-last paragraph of the Henry II's reign section, you mention "the king's growing quarrel with Becket over criminal clerks" before explaining what that quarrel really is. I strongly suggest reordering that paragraph so you explain what Becket's quarrel with Henry was before mentioning it and how Hilary factored into it.
reordered a bit... let me know if this helps. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last sentence of that second-to last paragraph and the first sentence of the last paragraph, you use "this" twice. It's not exactly clear which "this" is referring to which event.
Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, it's an excellent article and a fascinating look into the history underlying a tumultuous period in the history of the Roman Catholic church. The story is clearly defined, and you avoid getting bogged down in the undoubtedly Byzantine politics of the times. You do an excellent job of showing how Hilary and Becket seemed to switch sides in their arguments about the primacy of the crown and church between 1155 and 1165, and it's understandable even to someone like myself who has minimal knowledge of the context. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Becket is on my plate. I can't say I'm happy about the idea. (I've never liked the man, he drove me nuts in school.) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 9 March 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 Raul654 10:55, 9 March 2009 [41].

Meningitis

Nominator(s): JFW | T@lk

This top-importance health topic was medical collaboration of the week on two occasions and made it to good article in November 2008. It covers the topic comprehensively within the guidelines of WikiProject Medicine and I believe it worthy of being considered for featured status. JFW | T@lk 11:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from Scray (talk · contribs) -- It's very good overall, but the material on diagnosis of cryptococcal meningitis is problematic. As I dug deeper, I was surprised to find generally poor coverage of this topic in WP. The Cryptococcus neoformans article (appropriate) gives short shrift to the disease. Cryptococcosis, which should cover meningitis, is not cited in Meningitis and has only a little more information; it is not a high-quality article. Cryptococcal meningitis is rare and difficult to diagnose in people without HIV (the India ink test is usually negative). In people with AIDS, India ink has been replaced by cryptococcal antigen testing where it is available, because the latter is much more sensitive than India ink, is just as sensitive in serum as in CSF (thus diagnosis is not delayed if LP is delayed), requires less expertise, and is safer for lab personnel (no handling of HIV-laden CSF-coated glass slides/coverslips);[42] the Cochrane Collaboration review on the subject was focused on resource-limited settings, and agreed that India ink misses 20-50% of cases but highlighted the fact that it is much cheaper than the antigen tests.[43] The cited article from the British Medical Bulletin is poorly-worded and vague, but does not in any way say that the India ink test is required. Yes, I will try to find time to be WP:Bold, but in any case I think these issues should be addressed, and may involve improving the content on cryptococcus. --Scray (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from GrahamColm (talk · contribs) - for now. The article needed input from a microbiologist and I have been bold and made a few edits [44]. But I am still concerned with the inconsistencies in naming the bacteria. Many readers will not know that "pneumococcus" and "pneumococci" mean "Streptococcus pneumoniae", and "meningococcus" and "meningococci" mean "Neisseria meningitidis". I advise using the proper names throughout the article but shortened to "S. pneumoniae" and "N. meningitidis" after the first occurrence. Also, these organisms are over-linked in the article. By the way, "coccus" is the singular form, "cocci" is the plural and "coccal" is the adjective—there were a few misuses. This sentence bothers me, "Meningitis caused by H. influenza and meningococci has a better prognosis compared to cases caused by group B streptococci, Gram-negative bacteria and S. pneumoniae", because N. meningitidis and H. influenzae are Gram-negative. Does "Gram-negative bacteria" mean other Gram-negative bacteria or is the source more specific, i.e. Enterobacteriaceae? I left an in-line comment in the text wrt this.Graham Colm Talk 16:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two comments: Great point on the confusing use of "pneumococcus"/"pneumococcal" and "meningococcus"/"meningococcal", but these are so pervasive, especially in conjunction with meningitis, that I would not strike them from this article - rather, I recommend defining them clearly. Regarding your last point, this could be fixed if one changed "Gram-negative bacteria" to "Gram-negative bacilli" (and overlap is minimal since H. influenza is generally described as a coccobacillus). Enterobacteriaceae is not a replacement for Gram-negative bacilli in this context, since some of the worst actors (in terms of prognosis) are not Enterobacteriaceae (e.g. Pseudomonas aeruginosa). --Scray (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Graham for being as BOLD as you can. And I apologise for not getting you involved before nominating this as FAC. The sentence that bothers you is almost verbatim from the source, but it could be that it refers specifically to coliforms and enterobacteriaciae. I will chase this up when I can. JFW | T@lk 20:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support — Graham Colm Talk 07:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Looie496 (talk · contribs) Nice article in many respects. The greatest problem I see is that the article fails to discuss the relationship between meningitis and encephalitis, which is crucial because when meningitis causes death, it most frequently does so by progressing to encephalitis (at least, that's my understanding). I tried to add a mention of this to the lead but it was reverted. Also, since this article is likely to be read by non-experts who worry that a friend or relative might have the condition, it is probably worth stating that a lumbar puncture is a serious procedure that ought not to be performed unless there are positive grounds for suspecting meningitis -- i.e., not just out of an abundance of caution. Looie496 (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Encephalitis is discussed in the "early complications" section. The sources indicate that encephalitis is only part of a wide-ranging set of complications that can lead to death; tentorial herniation can also result from hydrocephalus. Encephalitis sine meningitis is indeed deadly, but is actually a different disease. We are already clear that lumbar puncture is only performed when deemed safe, but it would be negligent not to do a lumbar puncture if there is even a remote possibility of meningitis! JFW | T@lk 20:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from garrondo (talk · contribs) First of all it seems a great article, and I am sure it is going to become a FA. For the moment one comment (I will probably add some more as I read all the article): In the signs and symtoms/diagnostic features says Other signs commonly associated with meningitis include photophobia (intolerance to bright light), phonophobia (intolerance to loud noises), irritability and delirium (in small children). If I am not mistaken delirium does not only occur in children (even more: how do you diagnose delirium in very small children?). I have gone to the ref and says: Classic meningitis of children and adults usually begins with fever, chills, vomiting, photophobia, and severe headache. Occasionally, the first sign of illness is a convulsion that can recur during progression of the disease. Irritability, delirium, drowsiness, lethargy, and coma can also develop. I believe that even if the article is on infant meningitis here it is talking of meningitis symptoms in general.--Garrondo (talk) 10:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from garrondo (talk · contribs) I have finished reading the article and I have only two other related minor comments: I have found several sentences in the diagnosis section difficult to understand; probably due to technicalities: A pressure between 200 and 500 mm H2O (20-50 cm) and also In bacterial meningitis, the CSF glucose to serum glucose ratio is ≤0.4 Both should be better explained and wikilinked (in the second one would probably be enough to wikilink serum, glucose, and ratio; the first one I simply did not understand a word).--Garrondo (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As I read through this for FAC, I left some suggestions on the talk page. Many have already been addressed. I found the article very readable and generally accessible to a lay person. The sources are excellent. Great to see such an important topic covered well. Colin°Talk 22:53, 8 March 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 Raul654 10:55, 9 March 2009 [45].

Rampart Dam

Nominator(s): JKBrooks85 (talk)

Hello again! To those of you who've reviewed some of the past FACs I've submitted, this is not another in a continuing series of college football bowl game articles. Instead, I chose to pick a different topic in order to broaden my horizons and tackle an FAC outside of my normal comfort range. This article, Rampart Dam, is about a proposed hydroelectric dam across the Yukon River in Alaska. What makes it impressive is that had it been built, it would have created a lake the size of Lake Erie. That's pretty darn big. In any event, I feel the article is well-cited, has free-use images that appropriately illustrate the topic, has adequate prose, and covers all aspects of the topic. Most of the citations are book sources, due to the age of the subject, but that can't be avoided. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns above and beyond this article, don't hesitate to drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be happy to respond as soon as possible. Thanks for your interest, and I await your comments. JKBrooks85 (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper (current ref 16 (Special...) is lacking italics..)
  • Current ref 27, is lacking a publisher
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref comments -- Errors found in refs using WP:REFTOOLS

  • Coates, p. 153 | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Brewer, p. 2 | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • p3 | Multiple references are given the same name. [In addition, this should also be properly named.]--TRUCO 21:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a handy tool! I think I've fixed the problems you pointed out. I wasn't quite sure about what you wanted for that third item, but I think I got the gist of what you were talking about. If you could check it to make sure I didn't misconstrue what you said, that'd be great. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All of the issues I brought up have been fixed. Good work! Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Comments (leaning towards support) Just a few minor things:[reply]

  • I think the first paragraph of the lead might need to provide some type of dating - I thought this was more modern until I got to the last paragraph where it mentioned the 1960s.
  • Done. I also split that first sentence in half because it was kinda long to start with.
  • Need a citation after every quote even if it means subsequent sentences have same cite- see ecological objections
  • I think there was just the one ... if I'm missing another, please let me know.
  • All magazine titles in the article need to be italicized within the article. I fixed some, but I see others (start with Ecological objection section)
  • I think I got 'em, but let me know if you see any more.
  • First paragraph of Financial objections section likely needs some citation
  • Added.
  • Any idea why "In 1973, the Corps of Engineers revised the report to state that the project no longer could be justified under any circumstances."

Karanacs (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support switched from Slight oppose. All my concerns have been addressed.

  • "Engineers considered Rampart Canyon,[14] named for the nearby village of Rampart, to be a prime site for a hydroelectric ..." Wouldn't it make more sense to put the "named for.." clause up in the Site paragraph when the Canyon is first named?
  • Fixed. Absolutely. It's a good idea to move that up so we're not talking about Rampart Canyon before a reader knows why it's named Rampart Canyon.
  • "To fill the task of examining the economic feasibility of the dam, the Corps of Engineers created..." that first bit is awkward to me. How about "In order to examine the ..."
  • Fixed.
  • Source for "Meanwhile, the Corps of Engineers continued engineering studies."?
  • I don't think one is needed because of the next sentence, which details the releasing of the preliminary engineering study. The source with that latter sentence implies that engineering work had been ongoing. If you think it's critical, I can duplicate the citation on that sentence.
I'm a "cite everything" type of person, since someone somewhere won't know the info. Safer, I've found. But it's not enough to hold up my support. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway you can reword "Because the construction season (the period when average temperatures are above the freezing mark) at the site is only five months, the Corps of Engineers projected that several decades would be needed to build the dam and associated structures." to eliminate the long parenthetical?
  • Moved the information to a footnote. Think it works better that way?
  • The final design section. I'm not quite happy with the verb tenses used here. I THINK you should be using something other than what you are, but strongly suggest you check with someone better versed in grammar than I. All I can tell you is that it reads awkwardly to me. An example "The power facilities would consist of twenty-two 266,000 kilowatt units and two 10,000 kilowatt service units." I would have written "The power facilities would have consisted of twenty-two 266,000 kilowatt units and two 10,000 kilowatt service units." which just makes more sense to me when writing about something that was planned but never built.
  • I think you're right, with the exception of maybe one or two sentences where the prose talks about what was estimated at the time. ... An example of that: "it was estimated that three years would be needed to dig river diversion tunnels" ... since we're talking about them looking forward from the past, it's still "would be". In the other tenses, we're looking back at them as a potential, so it's "would have taken". I think.
You've also given me a chance to eliminate some of the passive voice in this section, the sort of "it was predicted" that sets some folks' teeth on edge.
I'm very much a "seat of my pants" writer. I read so much I just sorta know what sounds good and what doesn't. So when I hit things like this I can't quote grammar rules, all I can say is "it's off". Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was any part of the study concerned with the effect of earthquakes on the structure? You mention earthquakes in the geology section...
  • You know, that very subject has driven me absolutely nuts. I imagined that there'd be oodles of papers addressing that issue, particularly since one of the biggest recent quakes in Alaska was centered on Rampart in 1964 -- right in the middle of the planning! But no, the only things that I've managed to find are obscure references in the geological studies about fractured rock indicating an active geology. If I run across something, I'll be sure to add it. I know some sort of reference to this just has to exist, but I haven't managed to find it, and it's driving me crazy.
  • "Support for the dam project came from a variety of sources, but all supporters tended to use three primary arguments in favor of its construction: the electricity generated by the project would be cheap and plentiful, industries would be attracted to Alaska by the cheap electricity, and the dam's construction would have minimal impact on the environment and human populations." Probably need cites for this.
  • Added. I also removed the "all" since that seems to be a little too bold and reeking of independent research.
  • Is it really necessary to link "salmon" in "electrical argument"?
  • You tell me. It's the first usage of the word in the article, and since the article talks about a variety of wildlife, it might be nice to tell someone who's never left a city what a salmon is.
Unlike my citation policy, I'm not a big linker, so it's really up to you. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need a cite for "The refuge status eliminated any possibility of flooding the Yukon Flats, a process that would have been inevitable with the construction of the dam."
  • Cited the FWS's mission statement for the refuge program.
  • Need a cite for "It was feared that construction of the dam would block navigation routes and violate the treaty."
  • Added.
Neat article, will be happy to support when the above are taken care of. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
wait for the next one past the next one (Next one up isn't a bishop... (builds the suspense) but the one after is a bishop that tangled with Thomas Becket...) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slight image concerns as follows:

The above should be easily resolved. Jappalang (talk) 14:22, 8 March 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 Raul654 10:55, 9 March 2009 [46].

Alexander Cameron Rutherford

Nominator(s): Sarcasticidealist (talk)

After a good article review from User:Dana boomer and an absolutely first rate peer review from User:Brianboulton (as well as quite a bit of my own attention - this is a self-nom), I think I can safely say that this article isn't a waste of FAC reviewers' time. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I look forward to reviewing this in the next day or so. Two initial concerns:

  • Now here's a problem I don't see very often: the lead is very long and often too specific. Cut down to basics. —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds (of 12:22, 4 February 2009 UTC), which was interrupted by the following:
  • More of an aesthetic concern, but I feel there's too many pictures. You don't necessariy have to remove anything, but at the very least I do question the need for pictures of other politicians who aren't Rutherford. Something to think about. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My aim was one per section (and I didn't quite hit that, as "Public works" and "Later political career" don't have any). When I included images of people other than the subject, it was usually to prevent what I saw as an excessively long gap without any (for example, without Sifton and Boyle, there'd be four consecutive sections without a picture). That said, I'm happy to remove some and would welcome any specific suggestions of which should go. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to support: I spent a lot of time with this at PR, and expressed the view there that it had the makings of a featured article. I still think that; however, some points raised during the PR have not been fully addressed, some not at all. I believe that these require further attention before the article is ready for its promotion.

  • There is still a tendency to provide too much detail. The lead, though reduced from its former length, could easily be trimmed further, and the same is true for some of the main article sections.
  • Sentences are sometimes unnecessarily long, and their construction is often complicated by lengthy paranthetical inserts. These rarely read well, and could easily be edited into a better, clearer format.
  • The following is a single sentence from the article, which I think sums up my views as to sentence length, parentheses and overdetailing.:-

"He was a deacon in his church until well into his dotage, was a member of the Young Women's Christian Association advisory board from 1913 until his death, was Edmonton's first exalted ruler of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks and spent three years as the grand exalted ruler of the Elk Order of Canada, was Alberta director of the National Service Commission (which oversaw conscription in the First World War from 1916 until 1918), was appointed Honorary Colonel of the 194th Highland Battalion of the Canadian Expeditionary Force in 1916, served on the Loan Advisory Committee of the Soldier Settlement Board after the war, was President of the Alberta Historical Society (which had been created by his government) from 1919 until his death, was elected President of the McGill University Alumni Association of Alberta in 1922, and spent the last years of his life as honorary president of the Canadian Authors Association."

That could be reduced to a few examples of Cameron's activities, without detriment to the article. Exhaustive lists such as this do not make good reading.
  • The article still has non-encyclopedic terms, the two most obvious being "a dizzying array" (which might also be thought POV), and the reference to Rutherford's old age as his "dotage". These should be reworded.

I will have no difficulty in confirming support when these points have received attention. Brianboulton (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed almost all of your specific concerns, and tried to take some action to deal with the general ones as well. With regards to the mammoth sentence, I have divided it into three; I haven't removed any detail from there, however (as I have from elsewhere in the article), because I continue to be of the view that half a paragraph devoted to Rutherford's community endeavors is both reasonable and very much proportional to the weight it's given in sources (chiefly the Babcock biography, which deals with this sort of thing at great length). I'll go through the article again tomorrow to cull some additional detail and demented sentence constructions, but if you look at it between now and then I'd certainly welcome additional guidance. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Defintitely take out "dotage". WesleyDodds (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I am satisfied with the extent to which my concerns have been addressed, and can now give full support. This is a fine article, which impressed me during peer review and which has benefitted from further attention since then. Brianboulton (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Futher comments

"He graduated from there in 1876, and taught for a year in Osgoode before going to Montreal to study arts and civil law at McGill University.[2] He was awarded degrees in both in 1881, and joined the Ottawa law firm of Scott, McTavish and McCracken where he was articled for four years under the tutelage of Richard William Scott." It took me a few passes to realize a word wasn't missing. Consider rephrasing. —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds (of 07:10, 6 February 2009 UTC), which was interrupted by the following:
Which word seemed to be missing, and where? That should help me know how to rephrase. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The part I bold just seems awakward in general, I might work better attached to the preceeding sentence. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"He stopped in Calgary before taking the train north to South Edmonton.[4] He was excited by the small town's growth potential, and pleased to find that the dry air relieved his bronchitis". Which city's growth potential? The latter paragraphs make it clear it's supposed to be South Edmonton. Consider that, why even mention his stop in Calgary? —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds (of 07:10, 6 February 2009 UTC), which was interrupted by the following:
I made a change that I hope will address this concern. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The importance of him stopping in Calgary is still unclear. I suggest removing it. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, okay, done. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Rutherford campaigned on improved roads, resource development, simplification of territorial ordinances, and—in what would become a theme of his political career—increased educational funding". Change to "campaigned on a platform of". —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds (of 07:10, 6 February 2009 UTC), which was interrupted by the following:
Done. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"His defeat of two years previous still fresh in his mind, his platform this time included a call for a redrawing of the territory's electoral boundaries on the grounds that the current Edmonton riding was gerrymandered in McCauley's favour". Could either be two sentences or could be separated by a semicolon instead of a comma. —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds (of 07:10, 6 February 2009 UTC), which was interrupted by the following:
Done. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's a riding? —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds (of 07:10, 6 February 2009 UTC), which was interrupted by the following:
Man, this comes up almost every article I write. You'd think I'd eventually realize that the term isn't in common usage outside of Canada, but no. Wikilinked first mention. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It at first looked as though he would run unopposed". I wouldn't recommend starting a paragraph off that way. —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds (of 07:10, 6 February 2009 UTC), which was interrupted by the following:
I've merged the two paragraphs, as they were reasonably short and thematically-related. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"He served" I know it's his article, but with the start of a new paragraph you are free to say his name again without sounding redundant. —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds (of 07:10, 6 February 2009 UTC), which was interrupted by the following:
Done. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"He was considered a possible member of Haultain's executive council". Can you clarify who considered him (if the source doesn't say, then don't sweat it). —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds (of 07:10, 6 February 2009 UTC), which was interrupted by the following:
It doesn't (it uses the passive "he was mentioned as", and sources it to a 1903 newspaper to which I do not have access). The same applies to the ones you raise below: the sources (both Babcock and Thomas) use the passive voice often to convey what was apparently a general belief of those who were paying attention at the time. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"When the new federal constituency of Strathcona[18] was formed in advance of the 1904 election . . ." Put references at the end of punctuation. —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds (of 07:10, 6 February 2009 UTC), which was interrupted by the following:
Done. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"it was expected that the Liberal Laurier would recommend . . ." Who expected? —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds (of 07:10, 6 February 2009 UTC), which was interrupted by the following:
As above. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Haultain, who was a Conservative federally but who was thought to be a potential leader of a coalition government". Same issue as above. I'll stop listing all these, but make sure to see if you can clarify any of them using your sources. —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds (of 07:10, 6 February 2009 UTC), which was interrupted by the following:
As above. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Selection as Premier" discusses the formation of the government, but never outright says that Rutherford became Premier, which makes it odd when you get to the next section, which begins "Rutherford was Premier . . ." —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds (of 07:10, 6 February 2009 UTC), which was interrupted by the following:
"On September 2, Bulyea asked Rutherford to form the first government of Alberta.[26] After accepting..." I thought that was sufficiently clear. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a silly American, it's not intuitive to me that the premier is the head of goverment, nor would it be to anyone who doesn't know anything about Canadian politics. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not exactly unique to Canada. And besides that, I think assuming some bare degree of familiarity with the context in which the subject operates is standard. For example, FA Grover Cleveland includes the phrase "the electoral votes gave Cleveland a majority of 219–182", without actually explaining what an electoral vote is; it presumes that most people interested in a presidential biography will have some knowledge of how the President is selected, and that those who don't are free to follow wikilinks. Now, with that mini-rant out of the way, I've gone ahead and clarified it. But it was under protest. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Of special interest . . ." Why and to whom? —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds (of 07:10, 6 February 2009 UTC), which was interrupted by the following:
Changed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you need to list all the miners demands here. Summarize more effectively. —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds (of 07:10, 6 February 2009 UTC), which was interrupted by the following:
Respectfully disagree; I use fewer than forty words explaining the miners' demands, which seem to me to be central to the entire incident. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel you could still more effectively summarize it. It kind of rambles on. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After the first sentence, the first paragraph of "Public works" seems to lose focus on Rutherford as the main topic. He returns as the focus in the second paragraph, but until then I feel like I'm getting a lot of information that doesn't specifically deal with Rutherford. —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds (of 07:10, 6 February 2009 UTC), which was interrupted by the following:
Your point is well-taken; however, it's a trait of Westminster-style parliamentary democracies that virtually all executive and legislative action stems from the head of government. Anything the Alberta government did, and the vast majority of what the Alberta legislature did, is relevant to directly relevant to Rutherford. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, but remember to keep Rutherford the individual as the focus. The article is the narrative and Rutherford is the protagonist, if you get my point. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still need to go through the "Later life" section. Aside from these issues, I'm leaning towards support. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments the second

"After resigning as Premier, Rutherford continued to sit as a Liberal MLA". It's been a few days since I've read the article so I may have missed it, but what's a Liberal MLA? —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds (of 01:16, 9 February 2009 UTC), which was interrupted by the following:
I've wikilinked the term's earlier occurrence.
Ref 78 needs to go to the end of the sentence. —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds (of 01:16, 9 February 2009 UTC), which was interrupted by the following:
Is that in the MOS somewhere (that's a sincere question - I haven't been able to find it, but that doesn't prove anything)? If not, I prefer it where it is, since if I put it at the end of the sentence it could give an inaccurate impression of what material it's supporting.
"In advance of the 1913 election . . .", "In advance of the 1911 federal election . . ." Rather awkward phrasing. —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds (of 01:16, 9 February 2009 UTC), which was interrupted by the following:
I've changed both for the sake of variety ("In advance of the 1904 election..." occurred earlier in the article).
Both the later polictical career and professional career sections start out the exact same way. Rephrase —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds (of 01:16, 9 February 2009 UTC), which was interrupted by the following:
Done.
"Besides his legal activities . . ." I know you mean his activities in the law profession, but the phrasing suggests that he's going to do something illegal before you see the rest of the sentence. —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds (of 01:16, 9 February 2009 UTC), which was interrupted by the following:
Done.
I'd suggest placing the short second paragraph in "Death and legacy" at the end of the third paragraph, or integrating the two paragraphs together by some other means. —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds (of 01:16, 9 February 2009 UTC), which was interrupted by the following:
I've actually fused it with the third paragraphs; thoughts?
It would work better with the other paragraph, since that paragraph discusses some form of his legacy. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much it. Also, just as a formality: have you made sure to read and review all the major sources available on Rutherford? You probably have, but this is something I've had to ask more and more at FACs because people haven't tracked down everything available, so I just want to put my mind at ease. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Babcock biography is the only book-length biography that has been published about him, and the Roome chapter the only other scholarly biographical work of which I am aware. Both cite the Thomas book heavily (the Thomas book has also been cited elsewhere at the authoritative work about the Liberal Party's time in power). Any other biographical work would be institution-specific (the U of A, the Friends of Rutherford House, etc.), would be less comprehensive than what I've used, and would tend towards hagiography. It is likely that there have been some academic papers on elements of Rutherford's career of which I'm not aware, and there are definitely books about more general subjects (the history of Alberta) or tangentially-related subjects (the history of the University of Alberta) that I haven't used, but I've definitely hit the main ones. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I definitely hope there will be far more politician FAs to follow this one. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No dabs to speak of. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref comments -- Errors found using WP:REFTOOLS.

Image concerns as follows:

From the Hazel McCruaig Collection
From the Provincial Archives of Alberta
  • File:Rutherford family.jpg — this is most likely a donated private photo (very unlikely the government would take a family photo), so we can ignore issues of Crown Copyrights, but can we have the Object ID or Standard number of this photo?
  • File:Premier Rutherford.jpg File:Chancellor Rutherford.jpg (wrong file) — I had an issue with this as the PAA claims the Alberta Department of Community Development created this, hencing placing it under Crown Copyright; concensus on Commons was to keep on the basis that it was likely the picture was published, one that I do not totally agree with. Nonetheless, this seems to be moot, as it seems this is part of Ernest Brown's collection, based on these photos (A and B). The PAA has labeled the ADCD as creator for some private works,[47][48] so is there agreement that Ernest Brown took this image and we can simply class it PD as a private old photo?
  • File:Young R. B. Bennett.JPG — in the same vein, I suspect this is a photo from the Harry Pollard Collection (whose ID prefixes in the PAA start with "P"). I am in the midst of investigations, but if anyone can confirm this, that would be great.
  • File:Arthur Sifton2.jpg — with no ID or creator information (or even publishing details), how do we know this is not an unpublished photo under Crown Copyright (taken by a government photographer)?

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re: Boyle. I've included a link to the portion of the EPL website where I found the old photo, but I've also replaced the old photo in the article with the new one, as you suggested.
  • Re: Hazel McCuaig images. I've included all of the information I have on the description pages. I'm not aware that they are currently found in any library's collection.
  • Re: Rutherford family: Again, I've included all the information that I have. This seems sufficient to establish that the image is in the public domain, as you note.
  • Re: Chancellor Rutherford: Sounds good.
  • Re: Sifton: I've added an object number, but the item doesn't appear to be available online. If the image is subject to crown copyright, which is not clear, it need only to have been published by 1958 to be in the public domain. Given that its subject died in 1921, the odds of the government taking a portrait of a Premier of Alberta for whom very few photographs exist and it not being published until after 1958 seem trivially low. This is much the same logic as applied in the deletion discussions on the Commons of two similar images, both of which resulted in consensus to keep. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the McCluaig collection, could we have its physical location (Archives Canada[49] said it can be found at the Edmunton Archives,[50] and the University of Alberta[51]). It seems that the family photo on the PAA might also be from the McCluaig collection,[52] is this correct? As for the Chancellor picture, it was a mistake, I am actually talking about the Premier photo (which was the subject of dispute). Do you agree that the Premier photo was taken by Brown? Jappalang (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think there's any way of ascertaining the physical location of the photographs taken from the McCuaig collection; the collections in the City of Edmonton archives and the University of Alberta archives appear to be distinct, and without visiting Edmonton, which I don't expect to do for several months, I don't see how I could determine which these photographs came from. Is there a reason that the physical location needs to be includes?
      • The Premier photo certainly appears to have been taken at the same place as the Brown photos, but I'm not at all sure that we have sufficient evidence to say that it was taken by the same person. You normally seem adverse to "reasonable guesses" of this variety when it comes to photographs (see your nomination of this very photo for deletion on Commons for an example). Is there a reason you think the reasonable guess here is more reasonable? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the same principle as obtaining the ID of the pictures, the physical location would help others if they wish to locate and verify the documents (the basis for requiring such information). I am curious. Where did you access the collection to obtain these photos, if not from the university or Edmunton archive?
        • The "reasonable guess" to keep is "I am sure the photo got published before 1946, but I am not going to provide evidence, nor do I know where were they published in." That is not a good assurance; items in archives are not certain to be published (National Geographics and newspaper media have taken and kept many photos, of which only a minority are published; the same goes for government works). My reasoning is based on two parts. First, the photos certifiably taken by Brown were at the same location and time—the awarding of the honorary degree to Strathcona. Second, the PAA has, in error, classified private photos as their own creations—as pointed out above. Which is more reasonable—a call that is based on emotion and vaguery (would the recollection be correct, he might have mistaken UoA's circulation of the photo in their scholarship FAQ in recent times as "must have been published long ago"[53]), or one that has evidence to back it up? Jappalang (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • On another note, Sifton's portrait is on the PAA (A2685). However, it is "oval-framed", and other likewise photos surround it. A bit weird... Nonetheless, it is similar to File:1905albertacabinet.jpg and could be a good case for a published list of Legislative members. Jappalang (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I scanned the McCuaig images out of a book (the Babcock biography), which does not contain any further information about their collection. Indeed, I believe the book was published before Hazel McCuaig's death, so it's likely that the photos were in her possession at the time, and not in any library.
          • Are we sure that the picture in the article was taken on the occasion of the honorary degree being awarded to Strathcona? If so, how? I also continue to disagree with your approach to the other images, but that's probably not relevant to this FAC.
          • Re Sifton: If that's sufficient to convince you of pre-1946 publication, then I'd say go for it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, I see. I presume all the photos (even those from the PAA) were scanned from this book then. I filled in the book information in the source.
            • Regarding the premier photo, take a look. The image from the PAA distinctly shows that it is a cropped image (notice the cropped off arm of the person on Rutherford's right). The premier's robe is also the same as in the Edmunton's photos. Lastly the fencing and the potted plant to the rear of Rutherford in the PAA photo, corresponds exactly to the one in the rear of the Edmunton's photos. There is no other year that Strathcona would be at the University except in the fall of 1909.[54] It is elementary deduction.
            • I am very close to striking the Sifton image; it belongs to this composition of the Third Legislative Assembly. If you look closely at the bottom right, the label states the studio that made this composition (the last word, I am pretty confident, is "Studio"; the first, I have problems reading). Thus, this qualifies as private work; but let me do some further investigation first. Jappalang (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Very well. As I interpret your remarks, you don't require any further response from me; please correct me if I am mistaken about that. As well, note that the city is spelled with an O - Edmonton. And despite my rather brusque tone earlier, thank you for your work on these images. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Sifton's photo was taken by Bridgeman Studio, and Bennett's was confirmed to be Pollard's work. As such, I instated Brown as the Premier's author. Image issues resolved. Jappalang (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose—1a. There are lots of technical faults, and the way the ideas proceed is often not logical. I've read just the opening couple of paras. The whole text, I see, needs to be carefully massaged, preferably by someone new to it.

  • Second sentence: "he studied and practised law in law Ottawa before moving with his family". Um ...
  • Opening: comma after "Alberta", perhaps.
  • "In keeping with the territorial custom Rutherford ran as an independent, though he generally supported the territorial administration of Premier Frederick W. A. G. Haultain. At the federal level, however, Rutherford was a Liberal." The logic that centres on "however" is unclear to the readers: was Haultain a Conservative? Or is your point the independent vs any party affiliation?
  • Second para: now hang on, you told us that he won a seat in the NT Leg. Assembly, but we've missed that bit of news about the Albert ?Leg. Ass., and have time-warped straight to his accession to the premiership of that province.
  • "Speed limits" ... for trains? For motor (road) vehicles? Or any number of other things?
  • A few phrases in the second para have the slight feel of having been taken directly from another text (I noticed this in the last sentence). I may well be wrong, though.
  • "The government was also faced with labour unrest in the coal mining industry,"—"Also" is usually a bad idea. Where were we told about other labour unrest the govt. had faced? And as a back-reference, it's in tension with the paragraph break. Just remove it. "Striking" a commission to deal with labour unrest is an unfortunate choice of wording. Tony (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • First point: Not sure I see the problem. Wow, not sure how I missed that; Wikialf fixed it, in any event.
    • Comma after Alberta: I'm not clear where you're talking about.
    • "However": Given the order of the sentences, I thought it was clear that the "however" distinguished his federal Liberal inclination from his territorial independent status.
    • There's no time warp: he wasn't elected to the Alberta Legislative Assembly before becoming Premier because the Alberta Legislative Assembly didn't exist until after he became Premier.
    • Speed limits: The term is already wikilinked, and the target article makes clear the sense in which it is used.
    • I've just checked against my sources to make sure I wasn't unconsciously lifting their text. I wasn't.
    • "Also": Agreed and removed.
    • "Striking": Agreed and changed.
I'm prepared to accept that the text may need massaging, but I'm afraid that I need more feedback than the above if I'm going to take any action on it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SI asked me to look over the text, and while I have made a few small changes, I personally do not see a lot of technical faults on my first pass. I will admit up front that such technicalities are likely my greatest weakness as a writer. I do see a tendency to place many statements in parentheses that make a habit of diluting the point of the sentences they are placed in the middle of. I am going to leave it for a day or so, and then take a thorough second pass. Regardless, I am inclined to support this article, as I find it to be an extremely well written and thorough biography of Alberta's first premier. There are two glaring questions that I have, however:
  • "Aberhart rescinded his acceptance of the Kerr's invitation (and later removed the senate's authority—except, ironically, the authority to award honorary degrees)" (Later Life --> University of Alberta) What authority did Kerr remove exactly? I am presuming the authority to award degrees, but am not certain.
  • Keeping in line with Rutherford's committment to Education, I am rather surprised there is no mention of the Alexander Rutherford Scholarship, which continues to be awarded in his name to this day.
Cheers, Resolute 04:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts. I've explained the senate's previous responsibilities, but managed to create another parenthetical while doing so. I've also inserted a sentence about the Rutherford scholarship (rather ungrateful of me to have left it out, really). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm bad with aesthetics; if you want to rearrange them in any way, I am extremely unlikely to object. As I told WesleyDodds above, I'd also be happy to entertain suggestions for the removal of certain images, if you think that would help. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry, the image location is not why I am leaning. I just haven't had a chance to do a very thorough look. However, from what I have seen there are no problems (hence the support). This should pass as an FA. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 6 March 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 Raul654 10:55, 9 March 2009 [55].

Idlewild and Soak Zone

Nominator(s): Grsz11 (talk)

I began working on this article back in October. It passed WP:GA in November. Then I began working on it again in January, and had both an informal and a formal peer review. The park has an interesting history that made it easy to contribute to. I feel that it meets all the featured article criteria. Grsz11 22:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Current ref 34 (Ligonier Highland..) is lacking a publisher.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Grsz11 22:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I have many fond memories of Idlewild from when I was a kid, so it's interesting to see it here – I learned quite a bit about the history of the park from the article. A couple comments about the article:

  • In the external links section, the name of the Spanish company that owns Idlewild seems to be misspelled.
  • In the "Ligonier Valley Railroad" section: "The park offered a reward of $3 each for the return of the seven monkeys, and later believed that they had been set loose." You may want to be a bit more specific with the latter part of the sentence. Was it the owner of the park who thought they had been set loose?

Good job with the article, and good luck with the FAC. - Algorerhythms (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, done and done. Grsz11 23:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support issues have been fixed - Algorerhythms (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Nice to see something different here, in the form of an amusement park. Haven't been to one in 16+ years myself, though. Here are my initial thoughts.

  • The Web address in the infobox has a double slash at the end. Might want to check that.
  • "It has won several awards, including many from Amusement Today as the second-best children's park in the world." Terms like "several" and "many" are a bit vague. I understand the former since it's hard to know exactly how many awards the place has won, but I think the number of Amusement Today awards can be made more precise.
  • History: Comma after "a retired common pleas judge from Allegheny County".
  • The naming convention for Wiki articles on people with initials is to have a space after the first period. Should that apply for the Macdonalds here?
  • Comma after "a bagpipe director at the Carnegie Institute of Technology".
  • "The flood lifted and twisted the park's Loyalhamma Limited Railroad, which required extensive repairs.[15]." Double period.
  • Kennywood era: Pittsburgh doesn't need another link here; there have already been links in the lead and earlier in the body.

That covers most of the body, and what I'm reading looks quite good to me. Take a look at these for now, and I'll be back soon to review the rest. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Giants, I've made these fixes. Grsz11 22:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the popularity of waterparks growing" is a noun plus -ing sentence structure. For more on this, including tips on fixing it, see here.
Done. Grsz11 04:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commas before and after "in Images of America: Idlewild"?
Done. Grsz11 04:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recognition: Change the first word to "Opened" for past tense. Remove hyphen in "fifth-consecutive", and add one for "fourth best". Also would be interesting to see who named it the most beautiful theme park in the U.S.
First half done. The source just says it was named, and I can't verify who did. Grsz11
  • Attractions: "around the park's Skooters added in 1931." Comma after Skoote s?
Done. Grsz11 04:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hootin' Holler: In the second sentence, change the hyphen to an en dash, which is the first of the two dashes on the edit screen (the smaller one).
Done. Grsz11 04:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly confusing: "a spinning ride modeled like a tornado added". Is the last word the problem, perhaps?
It used to say the year, but it was removed as OR; just some leftovers. Grsz11 04:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Story Book Forest: Comma after "who portrayed the clown 'Happy Dayze' in the park during the 1950s". I keep mentioning the punctuation only because it's really important for an FA to get this right. Correct punctuation throughout is crucial for compelling prose.
Done. Grsz11 04:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were a few more problems near the end, but that's not uncommon in articles that I review. Before I leave, I want to ask if attendance figures can be found for the park. That would be an objective way to measure its popularity. What I'm thinking of is similar to what is in the Ligonier Games section, and could possibly mention attendance in the past as well. Just something to think about. Anyway, that's all from me. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Still wish that there was something about how popular the park is, such as attendance figures, but what's here looks FA-quality to me. Note that I'm not the most knowledgeable on what is cconsidered comprehensive coverage of an amusement park; I'm only judging based on what's here, which looks good to me. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could find that information too, but I've been unable to. Grsz11 01:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review as follows: For discussion —

  • File:Idlewild Carousel sign.jpg — I am not too sure, but I think this photo should be okay. It should be a structure (not a work of art), and hence fall under the freedom of panorama allowed by the US. Unless someone can point out otherwise, this image should be fine.

Serious concerns —

  • File:IdlewildPark.jpg as an identification logo, its rationales seem strange. One would expect it to state that it readily identifies the subject and its functions (amusement by ferris wheel, water park by splash), hence serving to identify the subject. Instead it states "Use of the logo visually identifies the station's programming and ownership in a manner that mere prose cannot", a vague (sort of "well, you know") and weird purpose; how does one tell the ownership from the logo (no sign of Mellon or Kennywood, and is it a media company ("programming")?
  • File:Idlewild Depot.jpg and File:Idlewild Carousel.jpg are scans from the book, Idlewild: Images of America (reversed in the Commons image pages) by Jeffrey S. Croushore (2004), pp. 11 and 22 respectively. The book does not state that these pictures were taken in 1920 nor published in 1920. PD-1923 is dependant on first publication, not creation. As stated in the Acknowledgments, unless credited, the photos come from the Idlewind Archives or R. Z. MacDonald, and might not have been published until now, thus they could still be public domain (120 years from creation or 70 years since photographer's death in this case). They should not be used if their copyright status cannot be ascertained. They also cannot be declared "fair use", as the structures are still standing and free photos can be taken at this time (thus failing WP:NFCC#1).

Needs attention, serious ones on the last two images. Jappalang (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted a claim at fair use for File:Idlewild depot.jpg. Grsz11 17:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is good, but you could have pointed out that the scenary has greatly changed for the depot (I have done that). Anyway, there is a CC-BY-SA photo of the carousel at http://flickr.com/photos/milst1/2756835238/in/set-72157606688697331/. There are a bunch of photos taken at the park released as either CC-BY-2.0 or CC-BY-SA (http://www.flickr.com/search/?l=commderiv&q=idlewild&m=text, ignore those concert shots). A few of them could perhaps enhance this article. No more concerns. Jappalang (talk) 11:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator PhilKnight has challenged the fair use of the image at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 28#Idlewild_depot.jpg. Jappalang (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but I found things to do, such as:

  • "Scottish"—isn't there a more focused link you could pipe? Part of the Scotland article, or another article?
  • Remove "originally", unless it was established more than once.
  • Avoid repetition? "ty. Judge Thomas Mellon, a retired common pleas judge from ..." Um: "Retired common pleas judge Thom... from ...".
  • Hands up who doesn't know what "monkey" means in English. "Word War II" is a dubious link; I'd be removing it in an audit. There are higher-value links in the vicinity, so let's minimise dilution?
  • "Doodlebug"—love it!
  • "Originally operated separate of the park"—something wrong ... "separately from"? "integrated into'"'?
  • "highest-regarded" --> "most highly regard".
  • Can you make the link to Scottish culture more obvious to the readers (it's piped to "culture"). Consider instead an explicit link down in the "See also" section; this is an increasingly popular technique to avoid hidden "Easter-egg" links.
  • "The fourth and fifth-generation"—See "hanging hyphens" at MoS. Tony (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tony, I have addressed most of those issues. Grsz11 00:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, thanks for your hard work. --Laser brain (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Comments[reply]
    • "The park is home to the Ligonier Highland Games, a Scottish athletic and cultural festival that has drawn over 10,000 spectators." I found this ambiguous. I'm sure you mean annually, but it reads total.
    • We seem to gloss over how exactly the lease developed after the initial three years with Darlington. The next time anything is said about it, it's 1931 when it's acquired. Was it under lease with Darlington that whole time?
    • I don't understand the Parques Reunidos section. You begin by writing that Idlewild was sold to Parques Reunidos, then go on to detail how Kennywood has rejected all purchase offers. If they finally accepted the Parques Reunidos, why? And shouldn't that go at the end so it's chronological?
    • Also, I don't understand what you are saying about Kennywood Entertainment being a family-owned park itself. There is not a park called "Kennywood Entertainment". This needs rewriting for clarity.
--Laser brain (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed all but #2. I'm not sure that answer to your question. We know that atleast in the early 1900s when expansion was "permitted" that the land was still being leased, but I have no knowledge of when specifically a transaction occured. I'll try and look for something. Grsz11 04:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the information is not known, we've covered it the best we can. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 16:39, 9 March 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 Raul654 10:55, 9 March 2009 [56].

Osteochondritis dissecans

Nominator(s): FoodPuma

I am nominating this for featured article because after a successful GA nomination, 2 peer reviews and support by colleagues I believe this article is genuinely FA material. It's sole concern at this point is that the article may be too technical for a general audience. I believe we, as a community, can work this issue out during the FAC process and any other kinks that may be raised. Cheers! FoodPuma 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this contribution is, in part, an educational assignment. Graham Colm Talk 00:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the article is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008; to which I am involved, it would be inappropriate to state support. However, the aforementioned concern over technical level is of interest. Hopefully, this FA attempt will not become a battle ground over the philosophical merits of technical accuracies vs. accessibility. When compared to other articles of a medical nature, this entry seems no more or less complex. The use of extensive linking to the appropriate resources; even to the point of creating sub-articles or stubs when nothing existed, offers the reader the opportunity to educate themselves where necessary.--JimmyButler (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Current ref 6 (Adolescent ...) needs a publisher. Author if known would be good.
The article was uploaded by a user "Matt" so I used that as the first name of the Author. Not really sure what to do in this type of situation, so feel free to change remove author name if that is inapproriate. Publisher added. (Note: this is now ref #14, as it did not needed to be included in intro and was removed there.) FoodPuma 18:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for current ref 43 (Adolescent...)
Same here, publisher was added but author is "user: Matt." (Note, now ref #44 b/c of added horse citation in signs/symptoms). FoodPuma 18:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Editorial Board listed on the page linked. Graham Colm Talk 14:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 52 (Autologus...) is lacking a publisher
Added publisher (Medscape) Graham Colm Talk 19:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources in non-English languages need to be noted as such.
Noted as such. Graham Colm Talk 19:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support - for now. The words "patient" and "patients" are used extensively in the article which gives the impression that the target audience are medical professionals. WP:MOSMED advises against this— see WP:MOSMED#Audience. I know this is often difficult to avoid (and we do not want "victim" or even "sufferer") but please try to use "people" or "person" whenever possible, or even "teenager". Yes, I agree that some readers will find this a difficult article to understand because of the technical terms. Again this is hard to avoid, but more of an effort should be made on the Lead section. Those readers with only a passing interest will probably only want to read this section. I think Prognosis would be better placed before Epidemiology, but this is no big deal in my book. I am particularly impressed with the references both in quality and quantity. Having watched this article develop since the project began last year, I am even more impressed with the result and that the article has been brought to the level of a FAC. I would like to see more comments from our medical colleagues (this is not my field) before adding my full support. In the interim, well-done, this is a fine achievement. Graham Colm Talk 20:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed these issues WP:BOLD →[57], please check that I haven't introduced errors and please indicate the location of studies, (US, UK etc) where appropriate. There is at least one. Graham Colm Talk 22:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed on jargon (in lede). If you expect a random reader to know what osteochondritis means in the lede, you're on the wrong site. The article on osteochondritis is merely a WP:DICTDEF stub that's not too much trouble to explain in this FA. The lede needs to present the information in an accessible order/fashion. We're talking about an inflamation here not some difficult concept that would be unwieldy to explain. Xasodfuih (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The order of the sections is also problematic. You could put history first since it's not too long to get tiresome, and it helps understanding the rest of the article; stuck between epidemiology and veterinary is rather odd. Classification should probably come after diagnostic, since it's based on MRI etc. The current layout discusses subtype subtleties before general info (signs and symptoms). Xasodfuih (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which you have obviously not read: "Establishing the forms of the disease (Classification) can be an important first section. However, if such classification depends heavily on understanding the etiology, pathogenesis or symptoms, then that section may be better moved to later in the article. If a disease is incurable, then the Prognosis section can be moved up and a section called Management is more appropriate than Treatment.". Xasodfuih (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict) I have read the guidelines many times. It was the comment about the placement of the History section that I did not agree with. The placement of this section in an FA has been debated many times, and although I do not always agree, I think it is not fair to oppose on this issue. Having said this, I agree that there are the problems of jargon in the lead section.Graham Colm Talk 00:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not feel strongly about the placement of the history section; it appears odd to me sandwiched like that however. I'm more concerned with the classification section diving too abruptly in minutiae, which is why I quoted the above MOS stuff. Xasodfuih (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply:I too agree with the necessity of a "dumbed-down" lead section after reading your comments. Thank you for pointing out some serious flaws that require my attention, Xasodfuih. Its getting a little late now, so when I get home from school tomorrow I will attempt some revisions of the lead. Hopefully I may sway you, should I complete the necessary edits in a timely fashion. Again, thanks for reiterating a point that I should not have disregarded in the first place. FoodPuma 02:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I almost agree and I don't think that the article should be "dumbed-down" at all. Short definitions after, "subchondral bone" for example, is all that is needed. Links often help, but if a phrase is all that is needed, then just include one. It is important to remember that many readers still have slow internet connections and the time taken for links to load can be frustratingly slow. This is such a good contribution, and the more I read it, the more tempted I am to remove my "conditional". Graham Colm Talk 23:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am particularly unhappy about the new position of the History section. I don't see any good reason why it should be so near to the start of the article. This is a deviation from the recommended WP:MOSMED guideline. If Xasodfuih or other editors have a problem with the guideline's recommendation, please take it to the talk page there. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I see it's the last section now, which is fine. I made a mere suggestion about the history section; like I said above, I did not feel strongly about it (nor did I make the change). Xasodfuih (talk) 06:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's a sentence fragment in the lead ("Sometimes with the formation of loose bodies of cartilage and/or bone within the joint space."). I probably won't review this article, as it's too far outside my areas of interest, but I wanted to at least note that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pending resolution of the following. The article is packed with good information, but often the connections are not made. That is so-called telegraphic writing. Readers familiar with the subject know the connections; some educated readers will be able to infer the connections; many readers will have no clue what is understood but not said, or make wrong inferences. When I finished reading the intro I had no clear idea what OCD was; I think I now understand, but I had to make a lot of inferences. I still don't know quite what growth plates have to do with OCD. The big picture needs to be brought out in the lede, and in intro paragraphs within the major sections. --Una Smith (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lede explains osteochondritis but not dissecans. The reader is left to deduce that dissecans refers to dissection. The name of a medical condition often is best "unpacked" in an etymology section, the first section of the article. Some of the third paragraph, beginning with Franz König, can go in the etymology section.
  • "Below the joints" is unclear. Many people have a mental image of bones and it does not include growth plates. I think the article needs to introduce growth plates even earlier than it does now (in the second paragraph) and state explicitly their role in OCD.
  • Some of the third paragraph, the part about confusing OCD with other conditions, perhaps should be put in the diagnosis section. The reader is left wondering about the difference between osteochondritis and osteochondrosis. Also, if in the past OCD was confused with other conditions, that implies those conditions form what MDs call a "differential diagnosis" where the task is to isolate OCD from those other conditions. What are the key details that distinguish OCD from each of these other conditions?
  • Reply: I disagree with you on the topic of your first and third bullets. I, personally, find an etymology section both unnecessary and possibly detrimental (in that it reiterates information found elsewhere in the article [for example, Franz Konig in the history section]). Elaborating on the difference between osteonecrosis and OCD as a result of ostenoecrosis (or avascular necrosis, whichever you prefer) would also only serve to confuse the reader by requiring them to read detailed information on the difference - knowing that "A" does not equal "B", but "A" is a result of "B" is enough to satisfy most readers. With that out of the way, I will agree that growth plates should perhaps be explained in it's role: that bone and cartilage typically heal faster/better when the growth plates of an individual are open (since the bone is still actively growing.) FoodPuma 22:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) You beat me to it, I fully concur with this response to the review. Graham Colm Talk 20:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should be noted that the suggestions of your third bullet, while in good faith, seem to oppose the general debate above concerning article technicality. Also, I wanted to point out that, in response to your first bullet, I have chosen to use a more appropriate definition from The American Association of Family Physicians. It does a better job of differentiating between the definition of the two words (osteochondritis and dissecans) and the definition of (osteochondritis dissecans) - the sum is greater than it's parts. Also, thank you for stopping by my talk page and explaining your reasons for opposing. I appreciate your time invested in reviewing the article. FoodPuma 20:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Epiphysis between articular cartilage and epiphyseal line
The lede is much better now. The prior version gave the idea that open growth plates contribute to OCD; now it says they contribute to recovery. I am suggesting pulling together the etymology, which is now distributed between the intro and the history, not duplicating content in those sections. I think this would resolve some discomfort that other reviewers have had with the location of the history section. I was startled by the history section at the end, even though that is where medicine articles usually have it. I think my startle was because the section has some content, a sentence or two, that should come earlier. If confusion of OCD with other conditions is a point of historical interest only, then doesn't it belong in the history section? Does it really merit mention in the lede? In a long bone the "subchondral bone" is the epiphysis, the bone that lies between the joint articular cartilage and the epiphyseal plate/line? Please define subchondral bone somewhere. Perhaps in Epiphysis with a redirect? --Una Smith (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I quote you (Una) as saying the following: "Please define subchondral bone somewhere." This can be found in the second line of the lede, and I quote, "OCD affects the subchondral bone, which is beneath the cartilage surface of joints..." Also, should that not suffice, "subchondral" is explcitely wikilinked later on Pathophysiology. Your argument for important information in the history section has merit, however users referencing that section will find it readily accessible via the "Contents" menu. Also, just as I explained how the epiphysis (growth plate) is an important part in recovery in the lede, I never mention it's importance again. Likewise, I explain the confusion of terms in the lede, but it does not merit reiteration or movement to a different or possibly new section. By including the material in the lede, we have assured the casual reader will read it (or is at least more likely to read it) instead of putting it an etymology section. By the way, I don't believe most casual readers will understand what "etymology" means unless they are an english major, teacher, high school/college/grad school student or professor in some field concerning the languages. It is not common knowledge. FoodPuma 01:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of style issues here: see Wikipedia:Lead section#Relative emphasis and MOSMED#Etymology. Is "subchondral" limited to a thin margin under the articular cartilage? Or does it extend to the epiphyseal line? State "articular cartilage" because that is what Wikipedia calls it. I would use the bone diagram in the article, right below the infobox. --Una Smith (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You will find the recent edits I made after Jakob.scholbach's suggestions has improved the lede dramatically. I believe the concept is quite fully explained in an accessibly way without sacrificing conciseness. If you have the time, might I suggest reading over the new lede to see if it has addressed your concerns. Thank you. FoodPuma 21:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lede continues to improve, but still needs more work. On the article talk page Graham Colm has asked that references not be used only in the lede. I agree. Those references, and any information not also in the body of the article, should be moved to the body and not mentioned in the lede at all. Reserve the lede for the most important information. Information not important enough to be discussed in the body does not belong in the lede. I fixed a couple of links to dab pages today, along with a lot of other work on the article and related articles, but a link remains to Anomalies. I have asked before about the role of epiphyseal plates in OCD. The article mentions them, which implies they have some role and therefore that the entire epiphysis is somehow involved. I now understand they have none, and I have edited Epiphysis to mention of the other growth zone (not a plate) on the epiphysis: the subchondral bone. The article about OCD might be improved by some careful rewording re this important distinction, or at least not linking to Epiphyseal plate in the manner that it does now. --Una Smith (talk) 06:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how your most recent edit is even beneficial, Una. Of course, I say "toe-ma-to" and you say "toe-mah-to" - the two versions are essentially identical in my book. EDIT: I noticed you changed arrow, which your edit summary indicated as "tightening" of the caption. You have "tightened" the caption, yet have in the process created an oddly-worded passage: "Pathological specimen from a sow; arrow indicates..." Might I suggest we just leave the caption as it was? Or if you feel it necessary to remove the arrow from parenthesis, that you make it two sentences and give "arrow" an indefinite article? Please and thank you. FoodPuma 02:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for striking. --Una Smith (talk) 06:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - I have watched this article grow from this to the current version, and I think that it is deserving of the star. FoodPuma, great work on this, and I hope that you will stay with us after your class is done (even if it's just the occasional copyedit! :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still reserved about the lede. (see support/comments further below) It has been significantly rewritten, and it is more enlightening, but it still contains hard to follow sentences, e.g. "OCD affects the subchondral bone, which is beneath the cartilage surface of joints, but can also damage the articular cartilage, which forms the smooth ends of bones found at joints." What is the subject of the "can also damage..." clause? OCD? I suspect its the fragment(s). Strongly suggest rewording to clarify. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: The subject of the verb "damage" was clearly OCD (imo), however, I can see how it may confuse some people. This is the predicament with simplifying and attempting to explain each word: it ends up being harder and harder to word a sentence (or pararaph... or section) that makes it easy to understand in both syntax and diction. I don't feel as though your example sentence needs changing, and because I can read it in my mind and make sense of it I don't know how to fix it. You can always suggest how you may want the sentence to be written, or you could fix it yourself. Also, if you would be willing to list the other sentences that have issues, and what those issues are, I would be willing to resolve the problems. Thank you. FoodPuma 13:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref comment -- Errors found with WP:REFTOOLS.

In general it seems the article is well-written, both in terms of prose and article organization. However, and this is quite a concern, it feels like the authors should definitely make more of an effort to make the article accessible to a wider audience. Unless this is done, I'm inclined not to support it as an FA. (From own painful experiences at FAC, I know what it means to write technical articles and get them reviewed by laypeople. I hope I manage to be still constructive ;)).

As a general point, I feel urged to reiterate that I sympathize with the challenges brought by such an FAC, but from own experiences I also know that "... is impossible" is often a wanting response. Also, I think it is common not to strike out reviewer's comments. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical nomenclature: it surely is impossible (and would be senseless) not to use technical nomenclature, but, where possible, you should include a brief explanation of the terms. Especially in the first sections where all these words occur for the first time, it is (I think) insufficient to simply wikilink. Example: "Despite much research, the causes remains unclear but possible include repetitive trauma, ischemia, hereditary and endocrine factors, avascular necrosis, rapid growth, deficiencies and imbalances in the ratio of calcium to phosphorus, and anomalies of bone formation." I highlighted all words I think deserve a brief explanation. The article in total is not yet too long, so writing "...deprivation of blood (ischemia), hereditary and hormone-related factors, ..." etc. throughout would improve the presentation a lot.
  • Reply: Would you really like to read several paragraphs on explanations of words? This is not a dictionary, this is an encyclopedia: those reading this article should be assumed to have some degree of knowledge in the subject. I highly doubt a 6th grader will read anything more than the lede of an article whose title looks like it's in a foreign language. FoodPuma 00:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, perhaps you write a sort of introduction section which gathers the key words and gives some background? Try to introduce the players in this game ;) This would free you from giving definitions of terms throughout the text.
This replies to the preceding two replies. I'm not into med articles on WP, so can't find one right away that has an "Introduction" section. However, I have some experience with technical articles (math, actually), so this may perhaps be a "justification". Let me try to sketch what I'm thinking of. Definitely not a dictionary. How boring! I just think of a brief (10-15 lines, say) section which introduces en passant both the medical terms such as ischemia and a global picture of what goes on in general joints etc. Perhaps something à la (I fully acknowledge that what I write may and will be factual nonsense; also, it differs only little from certain parts of your text, this is also due to my incompetence -- you would have to fill this out with key facts that are somehow of general importance):
Proper functioning of bones depends on a variety of factors, ranging from external mechanical influences over a steady input of bones with blood supply to genetical predispositions. In joining two bones in a joint, cartillage (chondr..) plays an instrumental role [possibly include a general schematic picture of joints if there is one]. Osteochondritis dissecans (see etymology section below for an explanation of this term) is concerened with certain issues related to subchondral bones, bones lying directly under the cartillage. Any of the aforementioned reasons may give rise to malfunctionings of the joints: repetitive mechanical shocks (trauma), particularly in joints that experience high mechanical demands, such as the knee, may cause pieces of the bones to break off the main part. Lack of blood supply, ischemia, is equally critical, since ... Deprivation of constant blood supply may lead to death of the bones (osteonecrosis) and the bone's subsequent reabsorption. etc. etc.
Does that make sense? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Altogether, I think the article has substantially improved (most importantly, the new lead is now well accessible and is a good summary of the article), so I'm changing my hesitation above to support. (I hope and expect, that the image labelling suggestion still comes to reality). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply: I plan on adding arrows to the two MRI scans and, perhaps more importnaly, to the main image of the infobox. I'll see if I can't address one of your above issues (sepcifically the Technical nomenclature of the body of the article). My apologies for crosing out your commernts, I was merely doing it to remind me of what issues I had fixed and what not. FoodPuma 14:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason the images on the article don't seem to "update." That is, they don't accurately represent the images at wikimedia commons (which have since been updated with arrow-edited versions). Any possible solutions? FoodPuma 03:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problems here, see all with arrows. Could be a browser cache issue. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: all images verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! FoodPuma 00:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article has significantly improved (version reviewed). It is now reasonably accessible, and the lede summarizes the contents well, albeit in a little too much detail (5-paragraphs). Some of the treatment and post-operative care details could probably be omitted from the lede; having said that, I don't think those extra details there detract much, (and I know how hard it is to write both concisely and accurately on a topic like this). Xasodfuih (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Xasodfuih, the lede was much improved but I still saw issues with it so I reworked it and it got a little shorter (version). Do you like it better now? --Una Smith (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready: this article needs a complete MoS audit and citation cleanup. There is no consistency on author name formatting in the citations (most medical articles use the Diberri template filler which provides consistent citation formatting, see here; there is no standard format for author names in this article). There are WP:DASH errors, WP:MOS#Captions punctuation issues, and WP:PUNC logical punctuation errors throughouts. I'm not sure a thorough review has been undertaken. I recommend contacting Epbr123 (talk · contribs); he may help with a MoS tuneup and citation cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dashes and overlinking fixed; didn't find anything wrong with the captions outside of your edit.
    • (@ Puma) - What she means by authors (I think - not to put words into your mouth, Sandy), is that you have "First Last" for some, "Last, First" for some, and "Last NN" for some. Also, a few have "Last, First; First Last".
    • (@ Sandy) - not everyone, especially when he's first-timer with a medical article (:/), knows to ask someone for a MoS review beforehand... :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Reply: My apologies, SandyGeorgia, I had some MoS fixes in previous peer reviews and did not have the foresight to request an individual review. I've now posted a request on Epbr123's talk page. Thank you for suggesting fixes, and not just "failing" it right out! :-) FoodPuma 04:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How very unfortunate that Epbr is no longer editing; he could always be counted on for MoS cleanup. No, FoodPuma, there is no chance I would archive this FAC over the remaining MoS issues, but it would be best to get them cleaned up before promotion. Another editor who is good at this sort of work, but busy, is Maralia (talk · contribs). Although I'm very busy too, if it comes to that, I'll have to do the fixes myself. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll ask for Maralia (talk · contribs)'s assistance ASAP. I'll also look into that ref link you posted - I had been using two ref/citation generators and had to fill a couple out "by hand" so I understand how their format got messed up. Cheers, FoodPuma 20:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forgot to mention earlier that I had been using the Diberri template filler for all of the PMID articles. There were some medical journals that didn't shop in PMID, forcing me to make their citations by hand, but for the most part I used the template filler. All book references were created by the template filler on toolserv. FoodPuma 22:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will give this a readthrough tonight and start some MOS cleanup. It's long; may take me a day or two. Maralia (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although it could do with a little massaging (it's written by a scientist, yes?). I had a go at one section, which needed a few little clean-ups. It's very good, but I can hardly bear to expose myself to the details (don't want to think about them—you must be able to switch off the blood/bones/meat aspect professionally). Tony (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Oops, and I see that Sandy has the stomach to read more than I did, and has picked up a lot more. Tony (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: 'Tis written by a student! I feel what you just said is the biggest hurdle for this article - it's position as a fringe medical article makes even the doctors over at [[WP:MC]] WP:MED feel too uncomfortable to review (with a few exceptions on this page). I'm posting a request at the Doctor's Mess now, hopefully we can get further feedback before the time comes for Sandy's/Raul's decesion. FoodPuma 14:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion over the meaning of "fringe" vs. "rare" collapsed as resolved by Xasodfuih (talk)
How is the article topic fringe? Because it is largely surgical, not medical in the strict sense? Why is WP:MC involved? Do you mean WP:MED? WP:MED has a huge number of articles, relative to editors. --Una Smith (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this comment related to the featured article candidacy of this article in any way? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FoodPuma, do you mean there is a WP:FRINGE problem with this article? --Una Smith (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the wrong wikilink. I meant to link [[WP:MED]. First off, you and I both know it's not a fringe theory. I was trying to point out that even most doctors, unless they are involved in orthopaedics, would have little to zero understanding of this disease (beyond what the technical terms mean, eg: subchondral bone). I believe you are taking this too far, Una. Lets be realistic here and not try to bend what each other are saying. As such, I will try to be very clear with you:
  • It is "fringe" because it is not mainstream and a rather unknown topic that only orthopaedic surgeons would have any experience with.
  • I don't know what you are getting at when you say "not medical in the strict sense:" it's a known medical condition that is taught, treated and researched throughout the world (I don't think you can get much more "medical" than that).
  • Concerning it being "fringe," one might logically deduce due to the lack of research within the medical community (when compared to diseases such as tuberculosis), it's place as a relatively untreatable condition (until late) and it's epidemiology statistics as a rare disease (as well as a misdiagnosed one) that it qualifies.
I am going to second Ed 17's positon - please do not try to be asinine and "shoot down" the article. Certainly, if you feel obligated to argue over the legitimacy of my claim that it's "fringe" than take it to my talk page. The FAC page is here for reviews, not criticism of my efforts to get a MoS review by a neutral editor - you are contributing nothing. Again, please don't respond on here, take it to my talk page. FoodPuma 06:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FoodPuma, "fringe" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. What you mean is not fringe but obscure. Obscure topics are not a problem; they are where Wikipedia really shines. --Una Smith (talk) 07:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to make this remark to FoodPuma that rare diseases are not necessarily fringe science topics since they may be well researched, which is the case here. I'm collapsing this discussion because it's mostly off-topic here and getting the tint of a flame war. Xasodfuih (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wanted to thank you for the recent edit. However I had one qualm over the substitution of "skelatally immature adolescents" with just "adolescents." For lack of better reason, I assume you were trying to simplify that sentence? It does read better in your version, but I just wanted to note that I was hoping to distinguish between skeltal maturity and immaturity (and it's relation to the growth plate). FoodPuma 06:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FoodPuma, you are correct that the important point is epiphyseal plates open or closed. I expect the phrase "skeletally immature adolescents" came from a writer mindful of the fact that not all adolescents have open epiphyseal plates. If adolescent alone does not work for you, how about "most adolescents"? --Una Smith (talk) 07:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Most adolescents" is excellent! But don't get me wrong, I would choose the most recent version (that omits the skeletally immature part) over the old version any day! Your edit is much appreciated. FoodPuma 13:49, 8 March 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 Raul654 10:55, 9 March 2009 [58].

Malcolm X

Nominator(s): — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets all the Featured Article criteria. I got constructive feedback during the GA process and during the Peer Review, and I look forward to any comments concerning its suitability for FA status. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Current ref 139 (Davis...) is lacking a publisher.
  • What makes http://www.brothermalcolm.net/ a reliable source?
  • All those refs at the end of the ref section that are "Movie Title" at Internet Movie Database need to be formatted just like the other web refs. They need a last access date also.
  • Ref 215 (Nebraska Historical marker...) needs a publisher.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I've added publishers for both refs. Brothermalcolm.net, aka "Malcolm X: A Research Site", is edited by Dr. Abdul Alkalimat, Professor of Sociology and Director of the African Studies programme at the University of Toledo, and is an initiative of the university and Twenty-First Century Books.[59][60] A website with reputable institutional backing, with editorial oversight by a published expert in the field, would seem to meet our criteria for reliable sources. IMdB issues outstanding. Skomorokh 16:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done IMDB references have been changed to {{cite web}} references. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not ready. Prose issues. Lack of narrative flow (text jumps from topic to topic with stubby paragraphs). Quotations used with little context. Claims cited to primary sources (especially his autobiography) presented as factual. Examples at random:
    • "Malcolm said she looked like a white woman." Said? What's the context of this "said"?
    • "Her Scottish father was a white man of whom Malcolm Little knew nothing except what he described as his mother's shame" Baffling sentence. Shame of what?
    • "His mother recalled the Klansmen warned the family to leave Omaha" Ungrammatical.
    • "The family relocated to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in 1926, and to Lansing, Michigan, shortly thereafter", "moved to Boston, Massachusetts, to live with his" Comma overload. Check for this problem throughout.
    • "Though Little's father" Ambiguous. Use "Malcolm" or "Malcolm Little" in this section instead of "Little". "Little wrote " So ambiguous in this context; which Little?
    • "Little was one of the best students in his junior high school, but he dropped out after an eighth-grade teacher told him that his aspirations of being a lawyer were "no realistic goal for a nigger"" Presented as factual but sourced to his autobiography.
    • ""Little developed a voracious appetite for reading, much of it after the prison lights had been turned off." Another example (there are many others) of a claim relying on a primary source and presented as factual.
    • "In The Autobiography of Malcolm X, he said " Surely, he wrote?
    • "During this time, his friends and acquaintances called him "Detroit Red"." Reads like an item of trivia; no attempt to integrate this to achieve narrative flow (if this is notable, explain why they called him this).
    • "He explained the name by saying, " Huh? Is this the stock quotation he used to explain his name to others at the time? What is the context?
    • "after hearing that he had described himself as a Communist." So vague; hearing??
    • "Malcolm X criticized " Again, no context for the quotation in this and the following sentence. When/where did he utter these words?
    • "Then one day he called and asked her to marry him" Professional, encyclopedic language, please. BuddingJournalist 23:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments. I'll work on the prose. I have a few notes of my own:
  • Malcolm X is the only person referred to as "Little" without a first name.
  • Many of the incidents in Malcolm X's early life are known only through his autobiography. Other biographers use the autobiography as their source. Where another source was available—usually Perry, who interviewed hundreds of people who knew Malcolm X—I used it. Question: Is it better to cite the Autobiography or a secondary source that used the Autobiography as its source?
  • The Autobiography of Malcolm X was written by Alex Haley based on lengthy interviews with Malcolm X and has a conversational tone. In some places, I varied "wrote" with "said". I'll be sure to use the word "wrote" in all instances. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not particularly familiar with the convention of referring to the subject only by last name in the midst of many others who share the same name. I've always been familiar with the convention of referring to people by their first names or full names in sections like these to avoid ambiguity, and I would advocate the use of it here.
  • Unless you are using it to point out, say, an inconsistency in what he said and what scholars say, leave the autobiography alone. Whenever you do use it, you should say explicitly in the text that the claim is based on the autobiography. For the most part, though, you should be using scholarly secondary sources to write this article; they are the ones best equipped to sort out fact from fiction in his autobiography. It's a primary source that is not exactly reliable. See WP:NOR and WP:RS.
  • Ah, in that case, then "wrote" would not be right. "said" would be OK...perhaps on first use of the autobiography, use "told writer Alex Haley". But again, these should be few and far between. BuddingJournalist 15:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed the references to Malcolm Little.
  • I've eliminated all cites to the Autobiography except where necessary, and in those instances the article makes clear that it's being used as a source, either by direct reference or by quotation marks.
  • I've replaced "said" with "wrote".
  • I tried to clean up the prose a little, particularly the sorts of problems you identified. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • I did a quick copy edit of the lede and first two sections. You might want to take a look and make sure I didn't screw up anything too much.
  • In the lede, I'm unsure about the phrasing about his Hajj. To avoid redundancy, might I suggest changing the relevant sentence to "After leaving the Nation of Islam, Malcolm X made a pilgrimage to Mecca and became a Sunni Muslim.
  • In the first mention of Marcus Garvey, would a qualifier be out of place for people who aren't familiar with him? Something like "Pan-African activist Marcus Garvey"?
  • The sentence "Little developed a voracious appetite for reading, much of it after the prison lights had been turned off" is a little awkward. Would something like "Little developed a voracious appetite for reading, and he read fervently after the prison lights had been turned off" work better?
  • There's quite a few past perfect verb structures throughout the article. Most of these are appropriate, but a few can be changed to simple past tense without affecting the meaning. You might consider switching some of these. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — The prose of this article is very clean, easy to understand, and grammatically correct. Though some minor imperfections may still exist, they do not detract from a reader's ability to understand the subject. The topic is presented clearly, with minimal bias, and the author(s) of the article have done a superb job of making it impartial. Citations are thorough and correct, and the number of sources consulted is impressive. Excellent work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKBrooks85 (talk • contribs)

Significant image concerns as follows:

  • File:Shabazz Gravesite.jpg: this memorial plaque is a work of art, considering the pattern and layout of the leaves and pebbled border. Under US laws, there is no freedom of panorama for works of art in the public. As the maker's copyright for this plaque has not run out (70 years past the creator's passing), this image cannot be classified or licensed as "free use". It is also unlikely to qualify as a fair-use image; the artwork is certainly not commented on, nor is it significant in the presented context.
  • File:Malcomxm1carbine3gr.gif: "Malcolm X continually stood guard, peeking out the windows, an M1 carbine in his hands, ready to shoot anyone who was going to carry out the death threats." and other such similar sentences can more than capably describe the picture; hence, this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and 8.
  • File:Noi flag 2.svg: as a flag of a religious body, it is likely a copyviolation. NoI may have said they are not going to swear allegiance to the US flag, but they still have to abide by US laws. As can be seen on http://www.noi.org/press-events/press10-17-2001.htm, they do copyright their website contents. This flag is on http://nation-of-islam-news.newslib.com/, and absence of a copyright notice on the front page does not mean that copyright has been surrendered. Proof must be gotten that the flag is in or has been released into the public domain.

All other pictures are verifiably in the public domain or under the appropriate license. Jappalang (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing these issues to my attention. I'll remove the images from the article and, in the case of the Nation of Islam flag, from the template. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images were removed, and as of this version, no images issues exist. Jappalang (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Support I gave an extended commentary on the talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia asked me to revisit the article. Make no mistake, I think it's well-done and certainly a worthy topic. However, I think the article should be more comprehensive. I do not get a sense of why Islam was so important to him. I don't understand from the article how self-education and self-reliance for blacks was so important to him individually, which is integral since he preached it. I believe it's essential that the article address how Malcolm X was moved into believing what he did. Now, it addresses his beliefs but only seems to chronicle them; glossing over them without dissecting them. I'm going to keep my oppose, but I understand if the article is promoted. I offered my assistance to Malik Shabazz in what little capacity I could, and I will keep that an open invitation whether the article is promoted or not. Best of luck, and let me know if you need clarification on anything. --Moni3 (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the comments, and I intend to improve the article to address the important issues you have raised. But it's too much for me to undertake in the next few days or weeks. I did address some of the issues you raised on the article's Talk page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the comments, and I intend to improve the article to address the important issues you have raised. I've started the process, but I'm not sure how long it's going to take. I've already addressed some of the issues you raised on the article's Talk page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 07:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support. Well done. You'll have a time keeping it clean. I suggest, as I noticed the bit about Red Foxx inserted, that you use a Footnotes section similar to what is in Harvey Milk to keep the somewhat interesting but not essential information in the article. I may come back to it and read it a few more times. --Moni3 (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you suggested, I've added quite a bit about Malcolm X's motivations, the response of the public, etc. I deleted the Redd Foxx information as trivia. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: good job. I'd like to see something about Betty Shabazz's position after Malcolm's death as a spokesperson for civil rights along with Coretta Scott King in later years..as well as Malcolm's grown daughters...Perhaps in the legacy section..Modernist (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Betty Shabazz largely lived her life outside the public eye, although she, Coretta Scott King, and Myrlie Evers-Williams made public appearances as the "Movement widows". The Shabazz daughters, too, have been very private; the index of a recent 600-page biography about Betty Shabazz has only five mentions of one daughter and eight mentions of another. I'm not sure that very much can be said about them that would contribute to the Legacy section. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 08:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen Betty Shabazz on public outlets such as C-SPAN, but probably that is hard to document. In my mind, she holds a weighty place in the legacy. As you say, she is one of the core "Movement widows". I am sure you have tried to find what you could. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:31, 8 March 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 SandyGeorgia 04:27, 7 March 2009 [61].

Kinzua Bridge

Nominator(s): ​​​​D.B.talk•contribs

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it now satisfies the FA criteria. Its been years since I created the article and have been slowing improving it since then, so I finally think that the article is ready to try to get its bronze star. ​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 23:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support all issues and concerns of mine were addressed in PR. Very nice work. Dincher (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I peer reviewed this and copyedited it and find it meets the FAC criteria Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: only one small issue, please point to the page that hosts the image, rather than directly to the image for File:July 21 2003 Pennsylvania mesocyclone.gif. Jappalang (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been changed --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 16:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for resolving that quickly. No more issues. Jappalang (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I did a peer review of this article, and all of my concerns have been addressed. I'm especially fond of the lead photo, the panorama, and the radar loop, and the article tells a most interesting story. Finetooth (talk) 20:15, 5 March 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 SandyGeorgia 04:27, 7 March 2009 [62].

William Henry Harrison

Nominator(s): — Rlevse • Talk •

US President, the one with the shortest term, and military leader. I'm a WikiCup participant. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old nom, images and sources reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref format comments -- Issue found with WP:REFTOOLS.

WHich dab? — Rlevse • Talk • 17:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ones found using the dab tools (located in the toolbox to your right).--TRUCO 18:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs, ref formatting, and external links found up to speed.--TRUCO 00:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - finally, an FAC in an area that I at least know something about. I think the term "military leader" could be confusing. Normally, "officer" is used in the vague sense. The "Tecumseh and Tippecanoe" could really use a picture to break it up. Are there any portraits of the battle or area? Of the individuals? The Tecumseh, Tenskwatawa, and Tecumseh's War seem to have some. The "Public office" subheading under "Post-war life" seems unnecessary. The picture in "1840 presidential campaign" is formatting against blockquotes, which I think is not supposed to happen (but I don't remember if it is stated that it can't happen, someone can verify). The "Administration and cabinet" stood out, but not in a good way. The chart on the Lincoln page seems to be even scarier, so, if any changes happen, please don't go in -that- direction. There is a picture formatting under "Death", on the left, which would cause problems with WP:ACCESS. I suggest making the death section a level two header and having the next two sections as subheadings under it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did most of this. Not sure what you mean by the rest. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I'm not sure what "the rest" means in this case. Anything in particular that is confusing? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The prose is more polished now, compared to my previous review (and some c/e) on Feb. 13, and overall the article is comprehensive, well organized, and nicely laid out, in my view (see diff).  JGHowes  talk 23:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'd be able to list a few nit-picky things, but all in all, this is a comprehensive and encyclopedic account of Harrison. A few disclaimers: I'm a WikiCup competitor. Also, I did quite a bit of copyediting on this particular article prior to its initial nomination, but it appears the text has been altered significantly since then. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:47, 5 March 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 SandyGeorgia 04:27, 7 March 2009 [63].

Donald Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!)

Article about Don Bradamn's role in the 1948 Invincibles team as its captain and No 1 player. Part of {{The Invincibles squad}} FT drive. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old nom, images and sources reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref format comment -- Issue found with WP:REFTOOLS.

  • More than 1 ref has this content, so it should have a ref name first.

Comment - Ref 5 is for "pp 222–;225". The semi-colon may be another little glitch that can be fixed. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed both of these. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - from previous nomination.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good to go.—Sandahl (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Here are a couple of quick things I saw while looking at the early part of the article again. My impressions of it as a whole are unchanged: great content, but lots of hard-to-understand cricket jargon.

  • "his troubles against Alec Bedsor's leg trap... was the subject of much discussion." Notice the conflicting tenses here?
  • There's a large space between the first and second paragraphs of Early life. I think it has to do with a hidden photo.
  • Two Keith Miller links in Early life. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed these. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 08:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support with some comments by Peripitus. Lots of cricket jargon but I cannot see how this can be reduced without adding excessive explanatory text. To me at least—a cricket ignoramus—though the jargon slows reading, the article is well comprehensible.

  • In the first paragraph of "Early tour" there are 4 references after a sentence with what looks like only two facts...is this strictly necessary ? I'm also confused as this is referring to a future event (what will happen in the matches) but is referenced to the post-match statistics. Is there a reference that shows that Bradman would have expected a run-rate slower than 3.64 ?
No I haven't looked, but in that era, it was always lower than 3.64; it is there to show that 200 runs took a longer time than 55 overs, so Australia did get a new ball more often. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 08:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shortly after this the use of the word "centurion", while seemingly common in this cricket context it seems an unneeded piece of jargon. Rather than to become Australia's first centurion on tour, perhaps to score the first Australian century on tour

- Peripitus (Talk) 06:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed it. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 08:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Pretty good.

  • "Australia then headed to The Oval for the Fifth Test starting on 14 August" Audit for unnecessary "then"'s throughout, it is one of those "transitional" words that actually impedes flow rather then aid. I don't understand what you mean by "starting on 14 August". Was the journey a multiple-day trip that started on 14 August?
  • "In contrast, Australia batted with apparent ease" Why only "apparent"?
  • "Yardley led the Englishmen in giving his Australian counterpart three cheers,[106] before shaking Bradman's hand. I don't think the comma is necessary.
  • "Bradman's relentless use of his pace attack and fieldsmen also raise eyebrows." Is this supposed to be present tense?
  • "Prior to"--Before (simpler, and sounds nicer to boot) Dabomb87 (talk) 02:03, 7 March 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 SandyGeorgia 04:27, 7 March 2009 [64].

Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall

Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all FA requirements and album requirements as outlined here. I have also made improvements to the article based on a peer review session. Much appreciated! --Another Believer (Talk) 22:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • Current ref 30 (Haggerty ..) needs a page number. The google books search link is not enough.
Done. Pg. 230 indicates Garland is an "important-to-gay-culture star".
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Both links have been corrected. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a: Comments: I intended to comment on this article in Peer review, but couldn't get to it in time. The article is in generally good shape, but there are numerous prose issues to be ironed out before it is of featured standard. The following comments relate only to the first few sections:
    • It needs to be made clearer that the second part of the opening paragraph of the lead is about Garland's 1961 album. I suggest that rather than "Her double album..." you begin "Garland's 1961 double album..."
Done.
    • "In response to the terrorist attacks the U.S. launched a War on Terror and eventually invaded Iraq in 2003." It isn't necessary to explain recent global events in such primary-school language; some reader awareness can be assumed: "The subsequent War on terrorism and invasion of Iraq caused Wainwright to become..." etc
Done.
    • Lumbering prose: "Stephen Oremus signed on to be the..." - "Stephen Oremus signed on as..."
Done.
    • Again: "Phil Ramone was put in charge of the audio recording." - "Phil Ramone took charge of the recording."
Done.
    • "Due to..." starts the last sentence of the Conception/development section and the first sentence of the next section.
Done. Changed first instance to "As a result of financial restrictions..."
    • "six times total" is journalistic shorthand, not good prose.
Suggestion? "a total of six times"? Other phrase?
Your suggestion is good. Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
    • "attributed to the amount of press received" - press attention?
Done.
    • "...and the interest in the other artists to participate in the event" - "and public interest in other participating artists"?
Comment: I am trying to say that there were many artists, designers, and celebrities that wanted to attend the concerts or get involved with the projects (provide clothing, promotional material, etc.) Suggestion?
OK, I misunderstood your meaning. Try "...and the eagerness of other artists to participate in the event" Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's misleading to begin a sentence "While the project fell through..." before indicating what project fell through.
Done.
    • Another lumbering sentence: "In return Wainwright wrote a song called "Ode to Antidote" for the design duo, allowing them to use the song to promote their cologne called Antidote"
Comment: I changed "in return" to "To return the favor" but I would like to know how else to improve the sentence.
Maybe: "To return the favor Wainwright wrote the song "Ode to Antidote", and allowed its use in the promotion of the design duo's cologne "Antidote".
Done.
    • "Wainwright's official site" - "website"?
Done.
    • "as well" and "and more" are both redundant in the celebrity participation list.
Done.

These are examples. The whole article needs to be checked carefully for similar prose faults. There are also a couple of dab links to fix, and the link in Ref. 28 doesn't work. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I could not find a reference link that did not work. Could you please clarify?
The link in Ref 28 - Staged 'n Engaged - doesn't work for me. It may be my computer - check it out. Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the link definitely works for me. From the Wikipedia article, I can click on the link and it takes me right to the E Online article. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Sorry for the confusion. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • Songs: the quote beginning "Hailing from a golden era..." should be specifically cited rather than included in the blanket citation after the list of songs. Also, "flubbing" is not encyclopedic, and in any event this sentence requires citing to a source.
"Hailing" part has been cited. Regarding "flubbing", is it acceptable to use if that is what the album reviewer writes? I included a reference to this source, which mentions the flub. Or, does the word need to be changed entirely?
  • Gay elements: "Of particular note is Garland's status as a gay icon, even before Wainwright was born." This is cited to [30], an ebook, p. 230. This page was not available for viewing when I looked. Does the source say "of particular note", or is this authorial POV? You could say "Garland was a gay icon, even before Wainwright was born", or "Writer George E Haggerty notes that..." if the phrase is in the source. Personally I prefer the former.
Done. Now changed to "Garland was a gay icon, even before Wainwright was born." Also, I updated the url so that it directs the readers straight to pg 230 in the ebook. I hope this helps. "Of particular note" is not in the text, but I thought that might be a way to start the "Gay elements" section. It has now been removed.
  • "...(a phrase Time repeatedly uses to describe gay men)..." Who says that Time repeatedly uses this phrase? Again it sounds like POV unless you say who said it.
Done. I removed the parenthetical phrase.
  • Somewhere, possibly in the lead, it should be explained that Martha Wainwright is Rufus's sister. I suggest that this is noted in the lead.
Done. I also noted that Kate McGarrigle is Rufus' mother.
  • In my view there are too many direct quotations in the Critical reception section, some of which are long, and some not very elegantly put. Would it be possible to paraphrase some of these? Also I would expect he section to contain at least some sort of analysis of the reception comments, beyond "Overall the reception was positive." Some more work needed on this section, I think.
Removed some quotations, edited grammar on Holden sentence. Better? --Another Believer (Talk) 19:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lifelong" is unhyphenated. Also, why is "pitch and articulation" in quotes?
Done.
  • Christgau's quote needs some closing quote marks.
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will look again when you have responded to these final points. Brianboulton (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All the points raised by me have been resolved in a positive manner, and I am happy now to support the article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • "released under Geffen Records" - is this a standard American usage? To me, saying that a record was released "under" a company sounds really really weird
Done. I changed "under" to "through".
  • The list of three guests in the last paragraph of the lead would read better if the two people who are related to Wainwright were listed together - currently the "his mother" is a bit isolated and makes it read in a rather illogical fashion
Done.
  • "caused Wainwright to become Wainwright to become" - stutter :-)
Done.
  • In the same sentence, the closing full stop should be placed outside the quote marks
Done.
  • "While driving in his car, Wainwright commented" - did he make this actual comment while actually driving in his car? If it means what I think it is meant to mean then it should be something like "Wainwright observed while driving in his car that "it [would] be funny to redo this as a song cycle". Soon afterwards, he took the idea....."\
Yes, he actually made the comment while driving in the car.
So did he say all of "it [would] be funny to redo this as a song cycle... And the next thing you know, it [was] happening" while in his car? Or did he only say the first part in his car and the second part is his later rumination on it.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, ok. Gotcha. The sentence has been updated, as suggested. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rufus wanted a feel for performing this material on a stage" - again, full stop should be outside quote marks
Done.
  • Song title "This Can't Be Love" is mis-spelt as "The Can't Be Love"
Done.
  • "While Wainwright did not in drag" - seems to be a word missing
Done. "While Wainwright did not dress in drag"...
  • "He also took "Get Happy" from the set and perform the tune" - mis-matched tenses
Done. Corrected.
  • "but anything that requires belting is pretty much a loss" - yet another full stop placed inside the quote marks when it should be outside
Done.
  • "Ain't nobody perfect" - and another one.....
Done.

All looks good other than these points -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - all looks good now, well done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

I just copied the image from Judy Garland's wikipedia article--I did not upload the image. However, the description says: Cropped screenshot of Judy Garland from the trailer for the film Summer Stock. Does this need to be brought up with the individual that uploaded the image? --Another Believer (Talk) 16:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had to reduce the size of File:Rufusdoesjudy.jpg; only the above niggle remains. Jappalang (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will the nominator please resolve the outstanding image concern? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I am not sure how to resolve this issue. I would hate for this image (that was not uploaded by me) to prevent the article from being recognized, so I will do anything I can to help. I believe the image may have been taken from this site (Main Page - MusicMe.com), because the image dimensions are identical. However, I am not sure how to make that site the source on the wikipedia file page. Help? I would message the user that uploaded the image, but Rossrs is currently on holiday. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, based on the file name (and how the musicme's site is in French), I would say that musicme copied the file from here. Anyway, I found the trailer on Turner Classic Movies, and it can be watched at a size close to the screenshot. We can reasonably state that the image was captured from there, so all issues resolved. Jappalang (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jappalang! Much appreciated. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:25, 6 March 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 SandyGeorgia 04:27, 7 March 2009 [65].

Kirsten Dunst

Nominator(s): --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE)

The article has been brought to GA status and one peer review process. I look forward to any feedback that arises out of this process. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't know on the reliability of the source, I thought it was reliable, since it was one of the links that came up during a Google search. But, I've removed the source and formatted the references as well. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb is not a reliable source for this info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used IMDB for her awards for this sentence ---> "For her work, she won the Best Actress Silver Ombú category award at the 2002 Mar del Plata Film Festival", not for the bio. Also, I've replaced the source. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs look fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support with Comments Very minor points, there might not even be anything that needs fixing here.

  • The film generated mostly critical reviews" I know in the vernacular, "critical" usually has a negative connotation, but it can also be used in a neutral sense, as in "a critical study of tree frogs". Very nit-picky, I know, but maybe it should be replaced with a word that has only negative connotations, like "negative" or something.
    • Would "The film generated lukewarm reception" work?
  • "She admitted that it was important to" Something about "admit" feels off to me; I know the dictionary definition is just "to acknowledge", but the word is most often used to connote an acknowledging of something secret or whatever ("He admitted that he still sucks his thumb") or to denote a concession in an argument etc ("He admitted the possibility that she was not really Mrs. McGillicuddy"). Maybe "She felt it important to" or something like that.
    • "Done.

Ink Runner (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: It seems an age since I registered my support during the last nom, but there we are. I did a lot of copyedits during that process, having done a weak job at peer review previously. I am sure that the article can be nitpicked further, and I might even do a bit myself, but I have no qualms about confirming my support. The prose flows well, nothing of significance is left out, sourcing and imaging look good. Brianboulton (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Honestly, I'm surprised this didn't pass the first time. I could nit-pick a bit, but this is generally solid. One thing I noticed: Ref 33 has some oddities. It has a Web template (where else would it be from?) and claims that it's archived from a film fest site, but it's actually from IMDB, a site with questionable reliability. Might want to check that. Overall, however, I think this is an example of what we should be aiming for with our articles on celebrities. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I replaced the ref. with an IMDB one. The IMDB source is credible because it is accurate with the awards and nominations. Also, there was no other source I could find, that would be reliable, to include in the article, hence why the original ref. 33 was in stored. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. I'm afraid this article has major chronology issues - the sequence of films within each year is obviously reversed. Apparently, the article was written based on the IMDb filmography without realizing that they list the newest film first. While this might seem arbitrary in some instances, as the shooting and the release of films often overlap, it does create false statements throughout the text (e.g. she hasn't "next appeared" (= in theater) in Levity, because Mona Lisa Smile was released eight months later). Further, the text creates the misconception that she first appeared in Little Women and after that got her big break with Interview with the Vampire. This again is not correct, according to the IMDb Interview with the Vampire was both shot and released before Little Women. Also, shooting of Little Women began in April 1994, making her at least 11 years old, therefore the second sentence of the article already contains two big factual errors. EnemyOfTheState|talk 15:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Status on this oppose, please ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the info. in the in the lead and fixed the info. about Levity coming out first before Mona Lisa Smile. If there is anything else, please let me know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you contacted the opposer to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about the Little Women–Interview with the Vampire timing, and her age when she shot the former? Both look unchanged to me. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've contacted the user regarding this and I've fixed the film order info. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The film order had been corrected in the text, but not in the lead. I have now fixed this so the lead and the text are consistent. Brianboulton (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but there are still problems remaining. Firstly, the filmography table should be changed to give the correct chronology (the order of films for each year has to be reversed). Then there is still the problem with her allegedly being 10 during shooting of Interview with the Vampire - according to the IMDb she was 11 during filming and 12 when the film was released. Kiki's Delivery Service is described as a 1997 film in the text, but is listed in 1998 in the filmography. The text discusses several films in the wrong order (The Cat's Meow - Get Over It, Wimbeldon - Spiderman 2); not necessarily a mistake as long as no timeline is established, but it's still strange. EnemyOfTheState|talk 11:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The age 10 is given in a quote from the an interview. If this is what Dunst said, then you can't change it, even though she gives her age wrongly. You could add a footnote saying "she was actually 11 when the film was made" - would that satisfy you on this point? Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not give her age of 12 at the film's release (Nov. 1994). It makes more sense anyway with the current wording; that's when she "gained recognition". EnemyOfTheState|talk 17:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've fixed the info. about Kiki, the film order, as mentioned above, and I fixed the film order in the filmography. If there's anything else, please let me know. Also, do you want me to change the age in the lead? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best to change the age in the lead, since 12 definitely is her age for the time the film was released, while 10 appears to be wrong, even for the production process. And I hate to beat a dead horse here, but the film order in the filmography still is incorrect. The order for 1997 should be: The Outer Limits, Tower of Terror, Anastasia, Wag the Dog, True Heart (couldn't find a release date for that, I'm not sure that film is notable enough to be included); in 1999, The Devil's Arithmetic should come first; in 2000, Luckytown should come second after The Crow. Also, her 6 ER episodes are missing in the filmography, should be included after Mother Night in 1996. EnemyOfTheState|talk 14:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its alright, your just faulting what I missed. I've changed the age in the lead and I've fixed the film order and I added the ER episodes. Like above, if there's anything else, please let me know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the chronology problems have all been addressed. EnemyOfTheState|talk 19:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally support, some smaller issues remain.
    • I agree with a comment above that the two instances of "mostly critical reviews" show better be "mostly negative reviews"
      • Done.
    • I think calling Elizabethtown a box office "failure" is a bit harsh, maybe disappointment would be more appropriate.
      • Done.
    • It think it would be useful to point out that Marie Antoinette is not a typical historical drama, but a highly stylized film which takes great artistic liberties with the source material and has a totally anachronistic soundtrack
      • I'm not sure what you mean.
    • The $61m of Marie Antoinette is not the revenue outside the United States, but the worldwide gross (incl. the US). It's also questionable to call it a "international success"; with a 40m budget and 60m revenue it probably did not make its money back during the theatrical run (studios get about 55%)
      • What would you like for me to do?
    • The last image caption gives the full date, while the three other captions only mention the year. Also it shouldn't end with a period.
      • I've removed the day, but left "April 2007", also I've removed the period.
    • The text does not use the WP standard "U.S.", but "US" for United States
      • I was going by this, but I've made the change.
    • It might be debatable whether Lover's Prayer and True Heart are notable enough films to be included in the filmography. The IMDb has very little information on these films; both seem to be straight-to-video movies.
      • I've removed them.

EnemyOfTheState|talk 19:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A fine article, but a sea of blue, too 'facty' yet, and short of a narrative thread. I see great work here, but still the article seems a tad listy and still only gets as far as describing how "she did this and then she did that" in a cut and pasty way. I think most of the hard work is done by now in giving an outline, but a highter overview is still to be added to get to FA. Ceoil (talk) 01:30, 7 March 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 SandyGeorgia 01:08, 4 March 2009 [66].

History of the National Hockey League (1967–1992)

Nominator(s): Resolute, Maxim(talk)

I am bringing this article back for a second nomination after the first failed in early January. Since that time, I've had three people review and copyedit the article as needed. Thus, I expect to avoid the litany of little issues that plagued this article the first time around. At this point, I believe this third article in the history series is up to the same standards as the first two, which are already featured. Maxim and I welcome all comments and concerns. Resolute 00:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the template above?--TRUCO 02:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Maxim(talk) 03:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reviewed this the first time, and am one of the three copy-editors who worked on this. After a little bit of fine-tuning, I find this to be a great read that meets the FA standard. The only changes I want to see are with most of the New York Times references, which don't have a publisher showing up. I think it might be due to the template, but I'm not sure. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is, unfortunately, due to that. The Citation template is very limited, however given I've extensively used Harvard referencing throughout the series, mixing the Cite x templates is a no no. It is the same reason why urls show up italicized. I should bring that up on the template's talk page. It shouldn't be hard to add in functionality to fix at least the publisher line. Resolute 05:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Never got a chance to review the article during its last nomination. Looks good, same quality as the last two articles of the series. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: All free images check out, provided we trust uploaders' assertions of "own work". The two non-free images have article-specific FURs which I find satisfactory; however, especially in the case of File:Paul Henderson 1972.jpg, other reviewers may disagree. I'll try to provide a complete review of the article within the next couple of days; as an Oilers fan, this is obviously my favourite era of the NHL's history. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - My concerns are addressed, and I believe that this is of FA quality. Comments: I'm not finished my review, and am posting comments here as they occur to me:
  • "His plus/minus (net total of even-strength and short-handed goals for minus goals against)" Given the wikilink, is it necessary to explain the stat in the article? If it is, I think more precision is needed; the current explanation makes it sound like it's the goals the player scores that count, rather than those scored by his team while he's on the ice.
  • I'm on the fence about whether so much attention should be paid to the Summit Series, which seems to me to be tangential to the NHL-proper. There's no doubt that it should be touched on, and it probably deserves its own section, but the game by game account strikes me as possibly excessive. I also think that the section is written from a pro-Canadian POV (as a Canadian friend of mine says, he's watched the summit series on DVD and always finds it hard to cheer for the Canadians, given what thugs they were).
  • "...while the Soviets looked at the result with pride." If this is going to be here, it should be elaborated on, since it's counter-intuitive (I mean, they lost, right?).

More to come... Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you explain why you feel it is a pro-Canadian POV? I honestly don't see it that way, but if you can explain what you feel is introducing this I might be able to clarify or rectify. Resolute 05:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a lot of it comes down to the subject. While the Soviets won the first game, that seems to be the last time they do anything: subsequent games are either won or lost by the Canadians. Moreover, the Canadians "battle back" and unleash a "relentless attack". Besides that, there's extensive discussion of the series' impact on Canada (Hull being left off the team, viewing numbers, etc.) but very little about its impact on the Soviet Union (though I suppose Canada was very much a part of the NHL, which is the subject of this article, in a way that the USSR was not - that might invalidate my last point). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I trimmed some of the skewed wording, but with regards to it being a bit more focused on Canada, I think it should be, as it's an NHL history article, and the competition between the NHL/WHA is an important event to note.
  • Agreed on your first comment, and removed. I've already pared down the Summit Series section, and while it does remain a little large, I am not certain I can pare it down any further without stripping it of context. Do you have any suggestions? Resolute 20:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, the game by game summaries could probably go. What's important to be in this article, I think, is the relationship between the series and the NHL, and the impact it had. I think most of the third paragraph and part of the fourth paragraph (the early part especially) could likely go, since it's dealt with just fine in the wikilinked article for the series itself. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Herb Pinder described the NHL to that point in this way:" Since Pinder's currently a redlink, maybe mention who he is for context (e.g. "Sports journalist Herb Pinder...")
  • I've removed a couple of commented out "please check"s from the Broad Street Bullies section; anyone know what it was there for?
  • I'm not willing to do it myself, but given the extensive coverage provided to international play in the "Summit series" section (and, more specifically, "legacy"), I'd suggest removing detail of the super series from the "Broad Street Bullies" section.
  • "...and lost over $2 million." In what period? The franchise's life, or its final season?
  • Do you really have to give so much weight to the Steve Smith incident? Do you think it's not already hard enough to grow up in Edmonton with that name? (Note that I'm probably kidding with this concern.)
  • The currency should be specified in the bit about the Gretzky trade. If USD, it may be appropriate to use Template:Inflation.

Still more to come... Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • All points addressed save the $2 million figure for the Atlanta Flames losses. I think that was just in their final season, but will have to verify against the book I used tonight. As far as Smith goes, it is a very famous incident, and I think warrants the two sentences it got. Besides, you gotta give us Flames fans at least that bone. ;o) Resolute 20:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The entire "KLM" line..." Context would help here. How about "The Soviet national team's entire "KLM" line, which led it in scoring..." or something similar? (I don't actually have any of the facts, to the preceding sentence is just an example of the kind of thing that might work).
  • "European players made up 12% of the NHL in 1989–90, the first time that the figure topped 10%. By 2000, that figure reached 31.8%, and a record 123 European players were selected in the 2000 NHL Entry Draft." Sources are probably needed here.

That's it for prose; this is generally an excellent article, and I expect to support before the end of the process. I have an inkling that there might be some statements that don't currently have references that could use them, but I'll go through those later. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed on the first. The European content figures were sourced to an NHL.com article. The NHL very rudely cleaned out a very large portion of its archives not too long ago, ruining a lot of citations for us, including that one. I will look to find alternate citations. Resolute 20:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Per Template:NHLHistory, this article is listed as the "Expansion era" and the "Modern era" begins in 1992. Why is the 1991–92 season the cutoff between "eras"? The Ducks and Panthers were expansion teams only one season later. Alternatively, you could argue that the shortened 1994–95 season was the cutoff. I'm just trying to understand the criteria for the lede of this article, as it seems arbitrary without some explanatory prose in the article. The start of this "era" is obvious; the end is not. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The cut-off was arbitrary. The first two eras are easy: The first 25 years for the league's early days, and the second 25 years being the Original Six. Given both ended up as quarter century lengths, I went with the same 25 years for the third. There is no great, exact cut off point for this, given that expansion past 21 teams began in 1991, while Bettman started in 1993. For that reason as well, I pretty much split the difference down the middle. The 1992-present article begins with the prelude to the start of Bettman's tenure: the 1992 players strike. Resolute 19:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I can see that, but if the choice was arbitrarily made on Wikipedia, and especially if we can't find a reliable source that defines the "expansion era", shouldn't we remove the emphasis on that moniker within this article (e.g. remove bold from "expansion era" in the lede)? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have no issue with that, though as an informal convention, pretty much the entire time after 1967 is known as the "expansion" or "post-expansion" era, so it isn't much of a misnomer. I'll think on an alternate way to open the article. Resolute 20:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. I guess I'm concerned about the distinction we make on Wikipedia between the "expansion era" and "modern era". I would say they are somewhat synonymous, and as you say, I think the present day is still within the "post-expansion era". The biggest difference from the 80s to now might be the emphasis on defence versus offense, but there is no specific event you can point to for that. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Sources were good last time, didn't see any major changes. Links were fine with the tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Checked and corrected any remaining cites that were incorrectly made using the work parameter and ensured all publications are italicized. They should all be good now. Resolute 20:28, 28 February 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 SandyGeorgia 01:08, 4 March 2009 [67].

Tom Derrick

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. Derrick is easily one of the most notable and distinguished Australian soldiers and Victoria Cross recipients of the Second World War. One of my personal heroes, I have been heavily working on his article for the last two months or so and it has been passed as both GA and A-Class by Wikipedia:Wikiproject Military history. Nick-D has also contributed in this endeavour, adding a good proportion of information and input into the "Later war service" and "Legacy" sections, with Roger Davies providing an extremely valuable copy-edit. I am severely grateful to them both for their time, efforts and assistance rendered. Well, any and all comments welcome! Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • Is the story about him walking to school in LeFevre apocryphal? Or did his parents move after his birth in Medindie. That would be about 12km back and forth for the round trip...Anyway I find the story that his family was poor but lived in Medindie a bit hard to believe because most houses there are old style and very large - many 2-storey homes on blocks of 1000+ sq m next to the city - usually for public servants, leading officials etc
      • I would say his walking such a distance to school is highly likely. No source I have seen state the family moved, and I know that several people of his generation did traverse such distances to school. Most sources state that the Derrick family was not well off, and you have to remember this was in the 1920's, so the suburb could have been substantially different then. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any reason given in the sources for his conversion? It says he was married in a Catholic church. Was his wife Catholic? I presume there was no benefit to his chances of promotion in that era, more likely a disadvantage to converting.
    • Dabs are all fine but the linkchecker is querying one of them.
      • That is a link to Derrick's service record held by the National Archives of Australia. For some reason, the linkchecker is somewhat weary of the links to the NA—I think this has something to do with the fact that it redirects. However, the link works fine. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any reason why only Australian Rules football is linked but not the others?
    • Can the location of Winkie be elaborated on as no link exists?
Googled it. Yes I'll start the stub. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, thanks mate. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A great article YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your comments, mate. I think I have addressed them all. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As noted in the nomination, I contributed a substantial quantity of text to the article's last two sections, but I think that I'm objective enough to vote and observe that the article meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I found that this article is generally informative and helpful and meeting FA criteria but I think you could cover his personal life better for more background information LetsdrinkTea 02:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review. I believe, IMHO, that Derrick's personal life—along with certain insights into his thoughts and feelings—have been adequately covered in the text. I have detailed his earlier life as much as I was able in the "Early life" section, and there are snippets of his thoughts, feelings, etc, included throughout the "Second World War" section, and again in the "Legacy" section. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An excellent article on a modern folk hero, detailed, objective, well sourced/illustrated. As ever, a couple of very minor comments/suggestions:
    • Intro: "...where he helped capture Lae" sounds a bit odd to me, as though only two or three blokes were responsible for the whole thing - maybe "fought in the battle to capture Lae" or some such?
    • Citation #38: I know 'bad show' is an expression and might therefore take single inverted commas but if it's a direct quote reckon it should be double - is it a direct quote?
  • That's it - great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: all images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 02:39, 2 March 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 SandyGeorgia 01:08, 4 March 2009 [68].

SMS Moltke (1910)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

I've been working on this article for some time now, and it just passed ACR over at WP:MILHIST/SHIPS. I believe it's at or close to FA, hence the nomination here. I greatly appreciate any comments and suggestions that will help improve the article. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support - a very nice article, may well switch to support once I have read through it completely--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Due to the strains being put on the Navy design staff" - "being put" is a little inelegant, is there a better way to phrase this?
  • Move the information about who the ship was named after from the last sentence of the first section to the first sentence of the second section where you discuss the launch, otherwise you repeat the same information twice.
  • Link Goeben in the main text as well as the lead.
  • The image of Moltke off Hampton Roads severely interferes with the heading below it. I know there is a preference for alternating images, but this should really be on the other side, otherwise it is hugely distracting for a reader.
  • "Goeben, needed replacement in the Mediterranean. Moltke was then scheduled to transfer to the Mediterranean, but this plan was interrupted by the outbreak of World War I" - uses Mediterranean too closely together, try to find another way to say one of them.
  • Use "Moltke" instead of "her" the first time the ship is mentioned in each section.
  • "raided the German destroyers" - you can't "raid" a destroyer in that way. Either "attacked the German destroyers" or "raided the Heligoland Bight".
  • "the arrival of the 1st Battlecruiser Squadron" - make it clear whose squadron it was (i.e. British).
  • 24 hour clocks usually have a 0 in front of single digit hours.
  • "and sank with great loss of life" - there weren't that many men aboard a D class submarine, I think great is overstating it here.
  • "On 26 August 1914, the German light cruiser Magdeburg ran aground in the Gulf of Finland" - this is an event out of sequence and should be written in the past tense ("had run aground").
Thanks for your comments, Jackyd. I think I've fixed everything you've pointed out. Let me know if the way I've rephrased the "Due to the strains being put on the Navy design staff" line is any better. Parsecboy (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • it would be nice (although by no means essential) to know the names of some of Moltke's commanding officers during her active service career - did any of them go on to have notable careers?
  • Can we have the full name (and a link if one is available) for Konteradmiral Eckermann? He sounds quite an important figure.
  • I've noticed that a number of ships and men that would otherwise be redlinks are delinked (i.e. the cruisers Hamburg and Munchen) I strongly recommend that these are created soon to fill the gaps and properly linked from this article.

With the above improvements, I am now happy to support this article at GA (for full disclosure, I think I peer reviewed this a while back).--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do actually have a list of the commanding officers of the ship; as far as I know, none of them went on to "bigger and better things" after the war/into WWII. I can add the info, but what would be the best format?
As for Konteradmiral Eckermann, Tarrant doesn't give his first name. This indicates that his first name was Richard. It seems reliable enough, so I'll add his first name to the article.
I'm going through the article looking for things that should be linked, even if the article doesn't yet exist. Let me know if you see any that I miss. I do plan on eventually creating at least short articles on every German warship of the period, so someday all the links will be blue. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these. With the captains, I son't think they all need to be mentioned, but those who were otherwise notable, in command at major actions or for a lengthy period of time (say a year for a ship in service only nine years) should probably be mentioned in the text in the sequence in which they were in command, with their full name given. Good work on the "red links", if you are unhappy about linking them while the article is at FAC, its probably OK just to make a list somewhere (i.e. talk page). Its not essential that they are linked in the article text right now. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll work the commanders into the text. KzS von Karpf, the commander of the ship during Jutland, is already mentioned (and quoted) in the Jutland section. I'm ok with the red links; WP:REDLINK encourages red links to articles that will eventually be created. All of the ships will eventually be created, so it's no big deal, I think. Parsecboy (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Significant image issues as follows:

  • File:SMS Moltke.JPG: what is the assurance that this is public domain (other pictures have sources, where did this come from)? Chief worry: the photo might be published only after 1923 (having remained in private collection till then), thus not qualifying for PD-1923 for storage on Wikipedia only. The Great War Primary Documents Archive does not own the pictures and cannot guarantee its PD (it is just doing to the best of its abilities, like us).
  • File:Willy Stoewer Dogger Bank 1915.jpg: this does not qualify for hosting on Commons. It is not public domain in the US (Commons demand PD in US and country of source). This was created by a German, which under German copyright laws, means that it will not be in public domain until 70 years after the author's death, and if he died only after 1925, the photo would not qualify for PD-US (also required on other rules) due to the 1996 cut-off required by the URAA. Stoewer died in 1931, making this image public domain in Germany on 2001, which is 5 years past the 1996 cut-off by the URAA for PD-US. Proof that this was published before 1923 should be supplied to avoid this.
  • File:SMS Moltke.jpg: doubtful hosting on Commons, similar issues to above. It is a German postcard, and the author is unknown. The German Wikipedia has guidelines for anonymous works, giving a guideline of 100 years since creation. Moltke, comissioned in 1910, would not allow this image to abide this guideline until 2011, which does not qualify for PD-US under the URAA. No source given, no date of publishing either.
  • File:SMS Seydliz under construction.jpg: Große Kreuzer der Kaiserlichen Marine 1906-1918 is a 1995 book.[69] Does it state the publishing date of this picture, or only about its creation? A reviewer (unreliable by Wikipedia standards) states that the information was unpublished until now.[70] Was this picture published before 1923?

Key concerns: creation does not equate publishing, images on Commons might not be PD-US. Jappalang (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that images hosted on the GWPDA were fine to use on Wikipedia. As for Willy Stöwer, I don't understand why his works aren't in the public domain; he died in 1931, which was over 77 years ago. Both the US and EU have life of the author+70 for copyright protection. What am I missing? As for the third image, I've attempted to contact the uploader about other images s/he uploaded, but as far as I can tell, the user isn't active. I've removed the images until their status can be clarified. Parsecboy (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Stöwer's works is a two-part problem. First off, uncertainty over the date of publishing means it might not qualify for PD-US under PD-1923. Secondly, if we are trying to go by the work as a foreign PD, they are not PD-Germany until 70 years after his death. That would be 2001 which would be fine, but the US has this URAA law that renews the copyright of foreign works on US soil (Wikipedia:Public domain#Country-specific rules) on 1996. Any works not in PD in its country of origin by then would have its US copyright extended. One way to circumvent this is to prove that Stöwer's image in the article was published before 1923 (since it would be undoutably PD-US under that rule, and PD-Germany by 70 years past author's death). Jappalang (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't make sense to me; does the life+70 law in the US only cover US citizens (i.e, does it not apply to Stöwer because he's a foreign national)? How long is the copyright extended for those works still within copyright in 1996? Parsecboy (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me if I confused you, let me try to explain as best as I can.
  1. For storage on Commons, image has to be in US public domain and Source of origin public domain.
  2. Image enters German public domain on 2001 (1931 + 70). This is under the EU law respected by US.
  3. Whether image also falls into US public domain depends on the year of publishing and the year it enters German public domain.
  4. If it can be proven to be published before 1923, there is no issue. It would be in US public domain as well.
  5. If not, then we would have to look at the year it enters German public domain. This is restricted by the URAA as pointed above. The cut-off is January 1, 1996, which this image would still have been copyrighted in Germany then. If the image was first published between 1923 and 1978, then the copyright is extended to the publishing year + 95 (2018–73). If the image was first published later than 1978, then it is 70 years after the death of the author (which would make it PD-US for this case).
Since there is no verifiable year of publishing for this image, the problem is if it was first published after 1923 but before 1978. Jappalang (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The case is decidedly dodgy since the signature at the bottom right corner of Stöwer's work seems to be "192x" (cannot make out the last figure). Jappalang (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The four images were replaced by File:SMS Moltke Visiting New York 1912.jpg, which checks out fine. All images used in this article are now verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for having a little patience with me :) That makes sense now. The last digit appears to be a 6, but I could be wrong. Here's a question: could the image be uploaded to en.wiki under {{PD-Germany}} or does it still need to be PD-US? Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, for storage on Wikipedia only, the image has to be PD-US. For foreign images, this usually means publishing before 1923; anything later than that and we would have to contend with the URAA... Jappalang (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And because prints of his paintings can be bought and sold, that would invalidate any claim of fair-use. I guess we'll have to wait until 2073, unless something else turns up (but hey, I'll probably still be alive then; I'll only be nearly 90. I'll just add it back then). Parsecboy (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - with comments:

*In section: Service record (Pre-war): What is KzS? Excuse my ignorance, my interest isn't piqued in history.

  • In section: Later operations: At 05:00 on 23 April 1918, the High Seas Fleet left harbor with the intention of intercepting one of the heavily escorted convoys - 5:00 UTC, or local time? Ceranthor 02:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, "KzS" is short "Kapitän zur See"; is there anything that should be done to make it more clear? For example, should I spell it out every time? All of the times are in CET; there's a note in the beginning of the Jutland section clarifying this (I thought that would be the most jarring to those who have read one of the far more common works from the British perspective. If you think it would be better to have it at the start of the service history, that's fine too). Parsecboy (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's okay, I just didn't see them 'cuz I skimmed. Struck. Ceranthor 14:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref comments -- Errors found using WP:REFTOOLS.

Can you clarify this, please? I see three instances where Tarrant, p. 52 is cited, but everything appears normal to me. Parsecboy (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More than one different reference is called "Tarrant 52", so that should be fixed accordingly.--TRUCO 02:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can't find what you're talking about. All 3 of the citations in Tarrant 52 are correct, and I don't see any duplicates. Parsecboy (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it for you. (Reference formatting found up to speed.)--TRUCO 03:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I see what you were talking about now. Parsecboy (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As with several other MilHist FACs, I'm unclear if hyphens are used correctly, and there is some prose that could use tightening, sample: During the design process, there were many weight increases due to the increase in the size of the citadel, ... (increase, increase, ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I fixed some of the hypens (and it looks like Maralia got the others) and reworded the sentence you pointed out. Is there anything else that needs work? Parsecboy (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've just given this a thorough copyedit and done some MOS cleanup (some hyphens and nonbreaking spaces). Minor quibbles: (1) why use the draught= parameter when the article uses American English throughout (including armor=)? and (2) why does the infobox give the armor in inches (mm) rather than the reverse order, as the other measurements are given? Maralia (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough copyedit, Maralia. I fixed the two minor issues you pointed out (I knew draft/draught was an WP:ENGVAR difference, but I didn't know which one was which). Parsecboy (talk) 04:53, 1 March 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 SandyGeorgia 01:08, 4 March 2009 [71].

Heinrich Bär

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966

I am nominating this article for featured article because it easily passed the A-class review and I feel that FAC is possible too. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I double checked the books, and some of them are from some obscure publishing companies that appear to specialize in military history, and do not appear to be self-publishing companies. I also double checked what WorldCat libraries had the works, to double check. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image concerns: no issue with File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-666-6875-05, Abgeschossenes amerikanisches Flugzeug B 17.jpg; however, where did File:Lwbar.jpg come from? What proof is there that this image was published before 1923 or qualifies for PD? Please refer to Wikipedia:Public domain#German World War II images. Jappalang (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lwbar.jpg was replaced with File:Heinrich Bär (Luftwaffe flying ace, born 1913).jpg, no issue with the fair-use portrait in this article. Jappalang (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query Hi Mister Bee, interesting work. My understanding of the military is they have a tendency to defined hierarchies so looking at "On 11 May, Bär was transferred from IV./JG 51 on the Moscow front to take command of I./Jagdgeschwader 77 (JG 77), commanded by Gordon Gollob," its unlikely that both commanded the JG 77 at the same time, was JG 77 part of something larger that Gollob commanded? Also my understanding of WWII Luftwaffe stats is that they claimed to have shot down rather more aircraft than the RAF actually had. Do we trust those figures? WereSpielChequers 10:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also is Fatnassa the one in Tunisia? http://www.geonames.org/2473013/ouled-fatnassa.html WereSpielChequers 11:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer I assume that I'm not precise enough in my wording. Bär was tasked to command I./JG 77, meaning he commanded the 1st Gruppe (group) of JG 77. Gordon Gollob on the other hand commanded all of JG 77. So Gollob was Bär's commanding officer at that time. At least that is what I intend to say. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that now makes sense to me. WereSpielChequers 23:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding overclaiming of aerial victories; this topic is subject to debate and leads to frustration over many Wikipedia based articles dealing with aerial warfare. You ask whether they can be trusted? A number of editors here on Wikipedia have tried to address this problem here: Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories. My contribution to this article is based on the references I listed and you can verify that I own most of them here User:MisterBee1966/Library. The figures in this article here are based on my sources. I am inclined to believe that they are as trustworthy as possible under the circumstances of World War II aerial warfare. Does that make them 100% error free? Probably not! MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added that to one of your footnotes. WereSpielChequers 00:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is Fatnassa in Tunisia. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, would you mind doublechecking the sequence in the Mediterranean section? Currently we have "operated from Fatnassa, Tunisia in early March 1943 - - In June, JG 77 was moved to the Mediterranean area and took part in the air battles over Malta before relocating to Italy. - In Tunisia," So Tunisia, Mediterranean, Italy Tunisia. WereSpielChequers 23:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done reworded this slighlty MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MisterBee, I'm still uncomfortable with this timing, and it looks to me very different to what we are saying in Jagdgeschwader 77. In particular we have the first Galland meeting taking place twice, once on the eastern front and once in the Mediterranean. WereSpielChequers 12:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I rechecked my sources: first, Bergström & Mikhailov state that Galland visited I./JG 77 at the Russian front on the day that Bär achieved his 100th vistory. Second, I also checked Kurowski, here it states that Müncheberg introduced Bär to Galland on 1 March 1943. There is no mentioning in the article as well as in my sources to which encounter was the first. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article here is not about JG 77 but Bär. I./JG 77 operated from 32 different airfields during Bär's command of the I. Gruppe (11 May 1942 – 31 July 1943). During this timeframe the unit was stationed on the Eastern front until June 1942. Then they moved to North Africa (July 1942 – May 1943) via Sicily. The operations against Malta were flown out of Sicily as far as I know. Next physical relocation was to Sicily in early May 1943 before moving to airbases in Bari, Italy in late May 1943. I don't feel that I need to go into this level of detail when writing an article about Bär. I moved the paragraphs to have the chronology inline. The article about JG 77 currently is unsourced. I don't see why more trust is placed on that article? MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, That latest change to June 1942 fixes the sequence. Previously the sequence of March 1943 followed by June in the next paragraph implied to me you meant June 1943. 10:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC) WereSpielChequers 10:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MisterBee, Apart from one parent presumably his mother being a farmer, there is no information about his family and very little about his personal life. If the sources don't cover that then fair enough but ideally a bio should - see Edmund Herring for a good example. Do you have anything about siblings, lovers, children etc? WereSpielChequers 13:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't have further insight into his private life. The most detailed book I own about his life is by Kurowski who says very, very little about his early life. There is some mentioning of him enjoying playing pranks with his neighbours. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK well what we don't have we don't have, the important thing for the FAC is that we've considered that and gone as far as the sources cover. WereSpielChequers 16:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image I uploaded a new version of the same picture File:Heinrich Bär (Luftwaffe flying ace, born 1913).jpg. Could someone knowledgeable please check if the Non-free fair use rational I gave is legitimate? MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit of editing made this okay. Jappalang (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I come to this FAC after a request on this page, and after I did some copy-editing. Here are the two big issues I see with the prose in the lead, and another one I caught while in the process of typing this:

  • "He is credited with 220 victories, claimed fighting in all the major German theaters of the war...". The "claimed" part is very awkward if this is read in its entirety.
  • "an achievement which is believed should have earned him the coveted...". Again some awkwardness, this time with "which is believed".
  • World War II: On a quick glance, I see that the "England is no longer an island!" quote needs a citation.done

Overall the article looks very interesting, and I look forward to giving it some further work in the near-future. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Hi and thanks for all the constructive feedback. Unfortunately English is not my native language so please stay with me.

"He was credited with 220 aerial victories, claimed fighting in all the major German theaters of the war including the Western Front, Mediterranean and Eastern front."

What I intend to convey is the following: 1st, he is credited with 220 victories. 2nd he fought in all the major theaters. 3rd, the word claim is a tribute to the fact that aerial kills, especially by Germans, are always subject to debate. If this can be expressed more elegantly please let me know. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to rephrase that slightly, sequencing it as per his story - east then med and swapped missions with kills so that kills is juxtaposed with being shotdown and missions with campaigns. What do you both think? Also to Giants, imprecision of WWII kill stats is covered in a footnote, do you think that sufficient, and if not what do you suggest? And MrBee, Re "an achievement which is believed should have earned him the coveted." would "an achievement which would normally have earned the coveted." be true? WereSpielChequers 15:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that reflects the message I intended to bring across. Personally I find the disclaimer about aerial victories sufficiently covered in the footnote. However, I know that a number of editors may want to change "and he was credited with 220 aerial victories" to something like "and claimed 220 aerial victories", which to my understanding does not fully reflect the facts. A claim is submitted by the pilot. Only after evidence and eye witnesses are presented, does a claim become a credited victory. So the mixture of "credited victory" and "claim" is a tribute to those people that question the approval procedure. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'm happy that its credited not claimed - yes there are anomalies in the crediting process but thats one reason for saying he was credited with shooting down rather than he shot down. I'm intrigued at the figure for him being shot down, especially as we also refer to some crashlandings. My understanding is that shot down means you've had to bail out whilst a plane that limps home and crashlands may be a write off but isn't shotdown. That may be me showing ignorance of air combat, but if not do we need to rephrase this as he was shotdown x times and nursed y writeoffs back to crashlandings. WereSpielChequers 11:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think the article is up to FA standards, there are some gaps that we would normally cover in a biography, but if we don't have sources we can't cover them and they don't detract from the things that make him notable and this article an interesting read. WereSpielChequers 11:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:CITE#HOW advises that the citation style used in the article be consistent; with that in mind, the non-footnoted reference in the lead should be converted to a footnote. I'll try to review the article soon, but make no promises. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - Few more things I found that I want to have looked at before I support:
  • Lead: "an achievement which which would normally have earned...". done
  • World War II: "Incidents like this are testimony to his often blatant disregard for higher authority;" Make the semi-colon a comma. done
  • Eastern front: Comma after "JG 51 was credited with 113 kills in total". done
  • Defense of the Reich: The link can be removed from Major here, since there's one in the previous section. done
  • Summary of career: "His claim of 124 aerial victories over Western-flown aircraft is second only to Hans-Joachim Marseille's total of 158;" Again, make the semi-colon a comma. done

The first one wasn't there when I copy-edited this, and I wasn't sure about the others before. On a second glance, however, I think changes would be beneficial. Overall it's a fine article, and I plan on supporting when these are done. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All issues addressed! Thanks for the feedback MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'll support now. I find this to be a great article overall (disclaimer: I copy-edited it during this FAC). Wish there was a little more about his personal life in the sources, but I don't feel that should be held against the article here. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: There's a lot to like here, and I think I may be able to support before this is through. However, there are a couple of statements that I think need to be referenced, and the prose isn't yet of FA quality.
    • "Presumably, Hermann Göring himself witnessed this aerial battle." Why do we presume this? done footnote added
    • "Your speech, Herr Reichsmarschall that England is no longer an island!" If this quotation is taken directly from a source, it needs a {{sic}}. If it isn't, it needs a comma. As well, is there additional context that could be applied here? As I read it, Bar was poking fun at Goering for claiming that England was no longer an island, citing the presence of water all around it as refutation, but I'm not clear on why Goering said that England was no longer an island. done [sic] added. I can only allude to the intensions of Göring. I think he intended to bolster moral and indicate that defeating England is just a question of time.
      • Do the sources explain to whom he gave the speech, and in what circumstances? That might be helpful.

Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done I think this addresses the issue MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Incidents like this are testimony to his often blatant disregard for higher authority, a trait that would frequently land the young ace in trouble." This probably needs a source. done
    • "Led by such able Experten..." What able Experten? For that matter, what are Experten? done
done rephrased the sentence
    • "...JG 77 "took over" the air space..." Why the quotes? done removed
    • "With Gollob a disciplinarian pro-Nazi and Bär an anti-authoritarian, there was mutual animosity between the two aces and an intense rivalry ensued." Probably needs a source.done
    • "His combat skills were hard to overlook and hence Bär was transferred to II./Jagdgeschwader 1 (JG 1) on 21 January 1941 as an ordinary pilot." We seem to be moving back in time here - what's going on? done good spot, was 1944
    • "Morale of the group soared following his appointment. He was considered the unofficial leader of the group and the best officer in the entire Geschwader. This effectively completed his formal rehabilitation from the prior year's demotion." All of this should be sourced. done
    • "Further pressure from the appearing Generalmajor Dietrich Peltz, commander of IX. Fliegerkorps, and from Oberst Hajo Herrmann, commander of 9. Fliegerdivision, unexpectedly emerged at the control room in Maxglan on 2 May 1945." This sentence makes no sense. done hope this makes it clear
    • I'm not sure I see the reason for the "Summary of career" section. It seems to be largely restating information that's already found in the body of the article. Could it be pruned down?
    • Footnote A doesn't seem to relate to the sentence it's been placed after. done relates to number of victories
    • As a general comment, I think there's too much German in the article. I appreciate that some of it is necessary, and the numerous wikilinks are undoubtedly helpful, but I think some changes could be made: for example, "Hauptmann" apparently means "Captain"; is there a style guideline somewhere that says that military ranks have to be in the original language? If not, could these be translated into English? The article is quite difficult to read - to an extent, this is inevitable but, bearing in mind that we are writing for a general audience of English speakers, I think there's room for improvement. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your constructive feedback. I think I addressed the majority of your comments. I translated the German ranks and used the English terms were appropriate. Unfortunately I can’t find an appropriate term in every instance. With respect of summary of career I would like some feedback what you want to omit? I would prefer to leave it as is. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The use of German has definitely improved. With regards to summary of career, much of the information—the three Wehrmachtbericht mentions, most of the awards, most of the promotions—are already covered in the text, and repeating them here doesn't serve much purpose. As well, looking more carefully, I've found some contradictions between the two: in "Dates of rank", it says that he was promoted to Captain in September/October 1941, while in the text it says that this occurred in "early 1942". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good spot again. Nevertheless I'm sticking with the summary of career section. If this is the only thing from making this article fail at FAC so be it. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to agree with Sarcasticidealist that more work could be done on the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref comments -- Errors found using WP:REFTOOLS.

  • Caldwell & Muller 2007, p. 153. Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Donaldcaldwell07 Multiple references are given the same name--TRUCO 03:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reference formatting found up to speed.--TRUCO 22:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reviewed this article for GA, and see that MisterBee has further developed the article since then. This article is well written, nicely structured, comprehensive and meets the FA criteria. Well done! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments It's pretty good, but needs some fit and finish before it's ready. Examples:
    • "... and he was credited with 220 aerial victories." How will readers know what constitutes a "victory"? Not dying? Making the other person die? done
    • I'm not sure why his accent is important enough to be mentioned in the lead, or indeed at all. (Okay, I see now that it has to do with Göring hating him, but it still doesn't need to be in the lead.) question His Saxon accent is so important to his character and is mentioned so frequently, at least in German literature, that I would find it a major omission not to mention it in the lead of the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Bär was born to a farmer in Sommerfeld ..." A female farmer, I hope, or we have some explaining to do. done some more background added MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After he illegally conducted some aerobatics on the Ju 86, he was secretly trained on fighter aircraft by Squadron Leader (Staffelkapitän) Douglas Pitcairn before officially becoming a fighter pilot." This is a pretty big logical jump... much more information is needed. done I wish I had more MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Stationed on the border with France, Bär achieved his first victory—a Curtiss P-36 'Hawk ..." Again, unclear what "victory" means in this context. done should be clear now with the reader having read the lead MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "During the Battle of France, he scored two more victories ..." "Scored" is too colloquial. done
    • "Incidents like this are testimony to his often blatant disregard for higher authority ..." I only see one incident. It's not clear that he had a disregard for authority, as opposed to a dislike for Göring.
    • "On this day JG 51 was credited with 113 kills in total ..." Is a kill different from a victory? done
    • "With Gollob a disciplinarian pro-Nazi and Bär an anti-authoritarian ..." This sentence needs revision so it doesn't begin with the ugly "With <noun> a <noun>" clause. done
    • "On 19 May 1942, Bär made five further aerial claims ..." Is a claim a kill or a victory? done
    • "In June 1942, JG 77 was moved to the Mediterranean area ..." The link to "Mediterranean" redirects to the Sea.. is that where they were? Over the sea? Can we be more specific? done
    • Normally, "ever-increasing" done
    • "On 15 March 1944, Bär, now a Major, was given command of II./Jagdgeschwader 1 (JG 1)." You don't really explain how this was possible considering the previous paragraph and Göring's issues. done
    • "Bär had just landed at Störmede airfield from a II./JG 1 intercept when the smoking B-24 of 458th Bombardment Group passed overhead." I'd prefer readers not have to click the link just to find out the nationality of this plane. done
    • Is "scrambled" common vocabulary? It's probably pilot jargon. done
    • "The operation resulted in hundreds of aircraft lost ..." More grammatical: "hundreds of aircraft losses" done
    • "Half a dozen" is too colloquial. done
    • "Pritzl Bär possibly flew his first operational sortie with JV 44 on 27 April 1945 ..." As far as I can see, you've not referred to him by his nickname at all - why now? done
--Laser brain (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, thanks for addressing my list but I'm still uneasy about this one. I'm short on time for now but I'll try to come back and do a fresh read-through. The frequent interruption for German translation makes the prose jarring - personally, I'd rather just see the German text (ex. "Oberst Werner Mölders" with a wikilink instead of "Colonel (Oberst) Werner Mölders" with both titles wikilinked) in some cases. In the case of the awards, I'm not sure the German text is warranted. I'm assuming if they click the link, the award's article will provide the German translation? Further, the prose is just not smooth in many places, with 3 or more clauses strung together making sentences hard to digest. --Laser brain (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback! The last two reviewers suggested that everything should be in English, since we're writing for an English speaking audience. I therefore distorted the article to its current state to meet their concerns. (It was using the German terms to begin with, which didn't suit them). The problem is that we don't have identical words for every German rank, position, formation, you name it. I wonder if we have guidelines for this? Personally I would rather use the German terms. Even those references in English use the German terms MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, our Manual of Style states that "foreign words should be used sparingly" but in this case, most of your use of German seems to be official titles or proper nouns. If there is no translation, you just use the German and place it in italics. I suppose I'm at odds with Sarcasticidealist and the MoS over the other items (like Captain vs. Hauptmann). However, I'm willing to bend to whatever the consensus is. Thanks for all your hard work - I will return later with more comments. --Laser brain (talk) 19:02, 1 March 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 SandyGeorgia 01:08, 4 March 2009 [72].

Kylfings

Nominator(s): Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib)

Self-nom as creator of this article (but many others have made significant contributions, particularly User:Berig). Recent GA and peer-reviewed article, providing extensive information about a relatively obscure topic. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Sources that are in languages other than English need to have that language noted in the reference.
Formatted with standard tags. –Skadinaujo T•C 23:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kolpon ref, you need to format the bare url in the reference.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right now it reads "*"Kölpön." A Pallas Nagy Lexikona. http://mek.oszk.hu (1998)." that "http://mek.oszk.hu" needs to not be the bare web address and needs to be formatted with a link title like the previous link in the ref. We need to know who the publisher of the site is, not just a link to the site. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, for now. My initial stance has changed from neutral to opposing due to a number of issues I have encountered in the article after a closer read. I have the feeling that if I put forward my concerns, the page will look more like a peer review than a FAC. I have objections to the general structuring and organization of the article etc. I will elaborate my views on request, please respond to this comment. –Skadinaujo T•C 13:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC) *Neutral. The article is well-written and will have my support when the following remarks/questions are addressed/answered. Hopefully this will not be any major inconvenience. –Skadinaujo T•C 23:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following remarks are made by Skadinaujo (talk · contribs):

1. What kind of citation style is used here?

  • This is a standard MLA citation style.

2. Many (most?) ref tags lack a name of some sort, which could be provided, as it is useful to simply hover over a tag to see what it cites.

  • Someone with more familiarity in tag coding will have to do this. At any rate, I don't think this should hold up FA status. Many FA articles do not have this kind of coding.
That's alright, simply a suggestion. I'll leave it in case someone wants to fix it. –Skadinaujo T•C 19:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

3. "The Kylfings were a people of uncertain origin who lived in Scandinavia during the Viking Age, and could be found in areas of Lapland, Russia, and the Byzantine Empire frequented by Scandinavian traders, raiders and mercenaries." (emphasis added) – Unclear; should there be a comma between "Byzantine Empire" and "frequented", giving the meaning that the Byzantine Empire was frequented by these traders? If this frequentation includes Russia too, I suggest splitting the sentence in two, as they lived in Scandinavia, while they travelled to the east, as far as I can understand.

  • Done.

4. "Scholars differ on whether the Kylfings were of Finnic or Norse origin, whether they originated in Denmark, Sweden or the Eastern Baltic, and whether the name denotes a particular tribal, socio-political, or economic grouping." – Unclear; what is the difference between being "Finnic or Norse origin" and "originat[ing] in Denmark, Sweden or the Eastern Baltic"?

  • Grammatically I believe the meaning of this sentence is quite clear. However, I will attempt to clarify further.
Sorry, but I still do not follow the reasoning. It might be your over-familiarity with the subject, my under-familiarity, a language barrier, or all of them, but nonetheless it still needs improval. Is it ethnic origin being discussed, the origin of this social group? What is being summarized? –Skadinaujo T•C 19:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see the revised text. The sentence you identify as problematic is now three separate, independently-cited sentences. One addresses ethnic origin, one geographic origin. I have further clarified in the intro. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Much clearer now, thanks. Could perhaps be tweaked a bit more for sentence flow, but what's important for me is that it's understandable. –Skadinaujo T•C 21:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

5. "In Old Norse, kylfa can mean a club or cudgel. However, it can also mean a smaller stick, such as a talley-stick or wooden token used by merchants, and it can also mean the 'highest and narrowest part' of a ship's stem. Another, still less likely Norse derivation is 'stammer' (kylfa)." – The meanings of some of the words are given by Cleasby, but who proposed the etymologies? I understand that Holm is the main source, but that should be clearly shown by putting references after each claim. This applies for the rest of the etymology section. In the "Scandinavians" section right below, it is stated that "Barði Guðmundsson translated 'Kylfing' to mean 'club-wielders'", I can't see why this shouldn't be mentioned first in the etymology section. Also, the idenfication with the Scylfings is also a linguistic matter that should be elaborated in the etymology section.

  • I'm not sure I understand your criticisms of the etymologies section. The opening sentences you cite actually contain three diffent sources. Appropriate citations appear to have been added for each of the proposed etymologies.
I just want to know who said what, and when. Who proposed these etymologies? Might need some restructuring as well, something like a sentence to summarize the trends of the theories and the great range of different suggestions. –Skadinaujo T•C 19:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
See revised text. It should address the bulk of your concerns. The identification with the Scylfings is not elaborated on by Gudmundsson with any detailed linguistic analysis, so it properly belongs where it is rather than with etymologies. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I still have a few things to point out here. Cleasby and Vigfússon's dictionary is a standard dictionary, not an etymological one. Citing Cleasby on this is not appropriate, as a translation does not equal a valid etymology. On what grounds are the Scylfings identified with the Kylfings? If it's on linguistic grounds, the theory behind this should be presented in the etymology section. –Skadinaujo T•C 21:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, Cleasby is now cited only for definition, not derivation. Scylfing connection has been removed because I could find no proper analysis of it. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

6. "Kylfingr corresponds to the Russian Kolbjag" – is Kolbjag a personal name, a name denoting a group, or something else? What exactly does "corresponds" mean in this context; that it is cognate to the word Kolbjag or that it is used to translate it?

  • Fixed.
Please see remaining comments. –Skadinaujo T•C 20:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I changed it to cognate with wikilink, as I suppose this is the meaning. –Skadinaujo T•C 21:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
See the revised text. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

7. "In Byzantine Greek, they were named koulpingoi and they were among the Emperor's mercenaries like the famed Varangian Guard." – Who were named koulpingoi, and which Emperor are we talking about?

  • Fixed.

8. "A strikingly different derivation was proposed" (emphasis added) – I suppose etymology is meant here, and not derivation.

  • "Derivation" is synonymous with "etymology."
I wasn't quite clear of the semantic difference (or lack of it). Now I am, thanks. –Skadinaujo T•C 19:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Derivation just means the origin of the word or where it is derived from. I just didn't want to keep using "etymology" over and over again. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

9. "(...) the Votic self-designation Vatjalaiset and Vatja (or Vadjalaiset and Vadja)." – What sort of self-designation is this?

  • Fixed.

10. "(...) who argued that both "Varangian" and "Kylfing" derived from the Turkic languages." – Varangian and Kylfingr should be italicized. Same applies for the next sentence. "Turkic languages" makes the claim a bit ambiguous, please clarify.

  • I disagree that these words should be italicized. They are english or anglicized words that are being discussed, just as viking in the following part of the sentence is not italicized.
See WP:ITALICS and Use–mention distinction for use of italics. When the word itself, and not the concept, is discussed, italics should be used. –Skadinaujo T•C 19:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, I have changed this. Thanks for the link to the MOS, it is helpful. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

11. "(...) while Kylfing was a Norse transliteration of the Slavic kolbiagi, itself deriving from the Turkic phrase köl-beg or 'sea-king'; under this interpretation the word Kylfing would be more or less synonymous with 'Viking'." – What is meant by "transliteration"? Should it be "translation" instead? "or" should be left out if köl-beg means "sea-king". "Slavic" should be wikilinked, as it is the first mention. Kylfing should be italicized in "the word Kylfing".

Please see remaining comments. Cf. #10 on italicization. –Skadinaujo T•C 20:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, made the rest of the changes. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. –Skadinaujo T•C 21:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note in the future that FACs and peer reviews should not be running at the same time. I have closed the PR. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. While this article is well written and educational, it lacks an "attestations" section (which I personally feel should be required on all of these articles). I would like to be able to read a bare bones and complete-as-possible rundown of where the name is attested exactly, as chronologically as possible. My experience has often been that sources may contradict, scholars may not be aware of certain sources, and for the sake of comprehensibility it's important to break out "just the facts" before delving into theories surrounding a subject. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the long delay in responding to this; I didn't realize your response had been posted. Anyway, for an example of a long article that goes in depth I've written, see valkyrie. For a small one, check out Hlín. Basically, I am asking for you to make a section, preferably (if roughly) chronologically, that details where they're first mentioned, (briefly) under what circumstances and so forth while keeping the surrounding 'theories' away from these attestations. Personally, I find the primary sources to be utmost important. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that format would work here. It would be misleading. As this article notes, the Kylfings are known by different names in different sources. I cannot say "the Kylfings are attested to in X, Y, and Z" without noting that in Y they are known by the Russian designation Kolbiagi and in Z by the Greek Koupiggon. In essence, the identity section is about attestations in various sources, but contains necessary explanatory material. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be quite possible, very neutral and educational. It would, for example, be possible to sort these attestations by the cultures that recorded information about them. Of course, this is always time consuming to do, since it requires a lot of hunting. Yet for a truly solid and enduring article I believe primary sources should take front stage and that the theories and explanations should be secondary. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the addition of the small list is an improvement, I am afraid I can't get behind an article that isn't more focused on primary sources for FAC. I won't oppose it but I can't lend my support either. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My concerns have been addressed. Karanacs (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Oppose for now by karanacs. I found a lot of small errors and have some concerns about some of the organization. I felt like the article assumed I knew more about Scandinavian history than I actually do, and it was confusing to me.[reply]

  • Need a citation (with page number), for this Holm discussed the term kylfa in connection with the word hjúkolfr which means "meeting" or "guild"; according to Holm, the second element kolfr could refer to a symbolic arrow traditionally used as a device to summon people for a meeting.
  • Inconsistent capitalization and italicization of Egil's Saga. Please pick one form
  • QUotations need to have a cite at the end of the sentence, even if that means that citations are duplicated in subsequent sentences.
  • In this sentence, I'm unsure who/what we are comparng Gustav Storm and Elias Wessen to: Some scholars (such as Max Vasmer in 1931) have considered the Kylfings of Egil's saga to be a "conquering Germanic people", or the Swedish king's tax collectors, e.g. Gustav Storm in 1889 and Elias Wessén in 1936 - the sentence parses to make those two be examples of tax collectors, but that makes no sense
  • The sentence on runestones in Sweden containing that personal name is misplaced
  • There is a lot of name-throwing of historians. I understand that this is somewhat necessary, but I wonder if more of it should be moved to footnotes or just citations, especially when we are discussing multiple historians with the same viewpoint and all or most of them have no wikilink.
  • Do we know when the last mention was made of this group of people?
  • It might be helpful to have some kind of table or timeline that shows when members of the group were believed to be where. There are also very few dates used in the article itself; I think we are supposed to interpolate those from the events listed. I know little about Scandinavian history, however, so I'd have to click just about every wikilink to figure out timings.

Karanacs (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your concerns should now be addressed. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a timeline section which I think is a reasonable compromise addressing Karanacs' and Bloodofox's remaining concerns. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is an excellent addition! Perhaps it would be better formatted as a table, with a one-sentence introduction before it? Karanacs (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would look good, but I'm not skilled enough in wikicoding to set that up properly. I certainly would support it.
Can you clarify whether you are now supporting the FAC? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Agree very much so with Karanacs. Prose needs work:
  • Scholars differ on whether the Kylfings were ethnically Finnic or Norse. - opinion differs

Barði Guðmundsson identified the Kylfings as an East Scandinavian, possibly Swedish, tribe - east-->eastern

  • Who are Holm, and Pritsak?
  • chrysobulls - What are these?
  • There is a lot of jargon in the article that should be either properly linked to or explained in parentheses or appositives. Ceranthor 02:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • What are the refs for these cites, please: Bugge 309, Chadwick 186, Laiou 91 (missing second author; in fact many cites seem to be missing them),Rundata.
  • many of these could be named cites, e.g. three instances of "A Pallas Nagy Lexikona"; four of "Chadwick 186"
  • Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Question. About refs: MLA says that if you have more than one author, you list the principal author only in the cites? Really? I work in social sciences & have never used MLA, but that's not what is says at Cornell's website (see "Multiple authors of a work") ... as for the missing refs, I don't care what MLA says: if you mention someone in your cites, I want to see their works in the references. No one ever said that you can't do more than the minimum required. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 01:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref tools -- Ref errors found using WP:REFTOOLS.

  • Guðmundsson passim. Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Ravndal 75. Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Arbman 90. Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Egil's Saga § 10 (Scudder 20). Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Pulsiano 557. Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Holm 95 Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Laiou 91. Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • A Pallas Nagy Lexikona. Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Székely 11. Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Chadwick 186. Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Struminski 234. Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • holm95 Multiple references are given the same name
Instead of listing the same thing over and over, use a ref name instead. In addition, some refs have the same ref name even though they are different citations.--TRUCO 22:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review as follows:

Hopefully, should be pretty quick to clear up. Jappalang (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No more issues with the images as of this revision. Jappalang (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's still another problem with the citations. In the "Notes" section, we find (for example), Chadwick 186. Yet in the alphabetical "References" section, we find no Chadwick. We do later find a Kershaw Chadwick, Nora. Is that the source used? If so, the Note should be to Kershaw Chadwick. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 3 March 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 SandyGeorgia 01:08, 4 March 2009 [73].

Bride of Frankenstein

Nominator(s): Otto4711 (talk)


I am nominating this article for featured article because I am a glutton for abuse and punishment and no one doles it out better than FA reviewers! ;-) Seriously, I believe that the article meets the FA criteria. Frequently cited as the best gothic horror film ever made and as James Whale's directorial masterpiece, this is a touchstone in American film history. The article was nominated once previously but was never evaluated as I had nominated two articles at the same time. Many thanks to the various editors who reviewed the article for GA and at peer review in preparation for this nomination. Otto4711 (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Current ref 22 (newman?) is a big red error message.
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper. Same goes for magazines/journals.
  • You need retrieved on dates for all your web sites.
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference tag closed, now ref 7.
  • Titles italicized, except for CNN since it's a network and not a newspaper. Some helpful soul "fixed" the references before, changing "work" to "publisher", without my noticing.
Love that when it happens... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No idea what the actual date was on that one cite but it's still live so I just put today.
That's perfectly okay. The idea is that if the link goes dead, you have a date to figure out when it was live, and it also shows you what revision was used in case they change the page. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The lead needs cleanup. The first sentence is very abrupt, as are several throughout the article. Avoid easter egg links; if you are linking to the original novel, write it out properly. There's too much detail on the plot elements from the book that the film drew from, especially since the lead spends more time on it than the article body itself. Simply state the film was inspired by the book and then describe what happens in the movie.
  • The plot summary could use a great deal of trimming. Stick to the basics; enough to give readers context and understanding, but not so much that I feel like I've just seen the entire movie.
  • Although you might not able to address this, there's an imbalance between the amount of text devoted to preproduction and to production (only a paragraph!).
  • Place the Academy Award nomination after the initial reviews of the film
  • Did The New York Times review the film. If you haven't already, search their website archive.
  • I suggest placing "Christian imagery" and "Homosexual interpretations" under an overarching "Themes and imagery" section. You can still have them placed under their own subheadings. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NYT is the country's newspaper of record, so if they reviewed the film, it would be essential to add the review. You still should trim down the plot summary; there's too many specifics. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is the cast section even necessary? It's just a listing of the actor and the character names, which are also in the plot. If you just include the actor names next to their respective characters in the plot, you can get rid of a section that seems to be doing nothing more than taking up space.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The poster doesn't have a source. All non-free images must be sourced outside of Wikipedia. The other image is fine. From the "Christian Imagery" section, this--"by inverting the central Christian myth of the death of Christ followed by the resurrection. The Monster is raised from the dead first, then crucified."--is not sourced. Also, you don't need to source every single sentence in one paragraph if all of the information came from the same source. Just source the last statement, indicating that the whole paragraph (or group of sentences) is from that source. Usually this is pretty clear, as you'll see that the statement is all about the same thing, so there typically isn't confusion about sourcing the "middle sentence" from a set of sentences from the same source. In the "Homosexual" section, this--"particularly embodied in the character of Pretorius and his relationship with Henry."--doesn't appear to be sourced. Another issue, you have issues with quotes and identifiers. This--"Whale's companion David Lewis stated flatly that Whale's sexual orientation was "not germane" to his filmmaking. "Jimmy was first and foremost an artist, and his films represent the work of an artist—not a gay artist, but an artist.""--has a quoted sentence at the end. Is this coming from the same guy, or someone else? If you say, "John stated "I hate ice-cream.", then a comma should follow "stated". A good copyedit needs to be done here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that each direct quote needs its own reference, which is why there are multiple references in the Xian imagery section. The reference to the glowing crucifix is there because the next reference is to a different source. Another reference added to cover the last sentence of that section. The poster (which I did not upload) has a source where the image may be found, but I have no idea if it's the actual location from which the image was taken. The bit about Pretorius is sourced in the actual discussion of the character and his relationship to Henry in the subsequent paragraph. Otto4711 (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another example. You have--"Rather, the Monster is a "mockery of the divine"[3] since, having been created by Man rather than God, it "lacks the divine spark".[3]"--you've listed the same source in the same sentence twice. It should always follow the punctuation, and if you're going twice in the same sentence then it should just come at the end of the entire sentence. Another--"In crucifying the Monster, he says, Whale "pushes the audience's buttons"[3] by inverting the central Christian myth of the death of Christ followed by the resurrection."--The source should follow the nearest punctuation (or end of the sentence if it's the same source throughout. If you have information in one paragraph that isn't sourced until the next paragraph, then it either needs to be in the next paragraph or the source needs to be in both places. Since the poster isn't the soundtrack cover, it isn't good to use it. Here is a source for one of the posters, but it would require you to upload this version over the current version.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so just to be clear, despite what I've been told in every other GA and FA review, I don't have to have a citation immediately following every direct quote? Otto4711 (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do and you don't. I've never seen anyone suggest that a citation must interrupt a sentence and be placed exactly beside the quoted text. It should always be present, but generally it comes after a punctuation (like a comma or a period). Even then, if you're quoting the same guy twice, in a compound sentence, I've never seen it suggested that you cite the source twice if it's all one source. I've never written any article that way, and that includes both Jason Voorhees and Smallville (season 1) (two FA articles with lots of quotes from one source).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is where I was instructed to cite each piece of quoted material, under the theory that should the quoted text be relocated at some point and moved away from the blanket citation the citation would be lost for the relocated comment. Looking at Bride now, is the referencing adequate for all quoted text? Otto4711 (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever gave you that theory...I control myself to use the term idiotic. If you have an entire paragraph from one source, you're clearly identifying the sayer of the quote (i.e. Karloff said, "..."), and the source is listed at the end of the paragraph then there is no way for you to lose said source should that quote get moved. If that happens, then it is because someone was too lazy to copy the citation that was at the end of the paragraph when they moved the quoted text. Ridiculous. Wikipedia:Inline citation discusses this, and for the Harvard/Wikipedia section it says "following punctuation" (so, should someone come to this article and say, "that isn't directly beside the quote", you can say "it's where it is supposed to be per the Harvard rule"). This apparently seems to contradict WP:Citing Sources. Although the former is an essay, and the latter a guideline, I don't see where WP:CS is actually quoting a formal guide for this statement (i.e. Harvard Rule, APA, etc.). I'm going to ask them about this, because this is the first time that I've seen someone actually claim it "must" be directly after the quote.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. Wow, interesting read! It's pretty good, but not up to par yet to meet 1a. I listed some representative issues below, but ideally this should have a solid hour with a good copyeditor. The big problem is the Plot section. I'm gonna watch this now, though, for sure.
    • "... although a number of Whale's associates dismissed the idea." Can we replace "a number of" to "some of"? Pet peeve :)
    • "The scene shifts to the moments at the end of Frankenstein." Okay, so I am confused about whether you are writing about the film or the novel. In the lead, you said this film is a sequel to Frankenstein the film, but rooted in subplot of the novel. We have to be really clear about which we are writing about. I thought you would be talking about the novel since you are mentioning Shelley, but you are clearly not because what you go on to describe is not what happens at the end of the novel.
      • Added the year of the first film.
    • By the second paragraph, you've written "the Monster", "the monster", and "the creature". There needs to be consistency here. Is he officially called "the Monster" in the film? Most literary criticism of Frankenstein the novel calls it "the creature".
      • Unless I'm cock-eyed from reading this thing a million times, I see one instance of "monster" and one instance of "creature". I have capitalized "Monster" but I don't think one instance of the word "creature" is a problem, any more than for example calling R2D2 and C3PO "the droids" would be. The character is called "The Monster" in the credits.
    • The whole plot section is very start-stop-start-stop with the stubby sentences and concise rehash of the plot. The readability is low and the prose is not compelling.
      • OK, so I have one person telling me that the plot summary is overly detailed and another telling me that it's too concise. No way to reconcile these two critiques.
    • "The studio had considered the idea of making a sequel to Frankenstein as early as the preview screenings of the film ..." Ungrammatical. "[A]s early as ..." wants a time, but you provide "the preview screenings of the film" which is ambiguous.
      • Added the year of the first film.
    • "... following the changing of the original ending" Ending of the film or the novel?
      • Added "film's" although it seems pretty obvious that the studio couldn't change the novel.
    • "Following the success of Whale's The Invisible Man, producer Carl Laemmle, Jr. realized that Whale was the only possible director for Bride, which Whale used as leverage ..." Poorly worded—maybe "... a realization Whale used as leverage"
--Laser brain (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments (leaning towards support, from Ruhrfisch) Generally looks good, here are some nitpicks and I will make a few copyedits. I will make some initial comments now and add more later.

Resolved comments from Ruhrfisch
  • Would it be clearer in the lead to phrase Elsa Lanchester as his Mate and Mary Shelley as something like Elsa Lanchester in a dual role as the Monster's Mate and Mary Shelley?
  • Also in the lead, would this be clearer When the Bride rejects him, the Monster dejectedly destroys Henry's laboratory, killing Pretorius, the Bride and apparently himself.?
  • Since it took 4 years from the release of the first film to this one, this sentence in the lead seems a bit misleading Preparation for the sequel commenced shortly after the first film premiered. Perhaps something like Although preparation for the sequel commenced shortly after the first film premiered, script and other problems delayed the start of production until 1934. would be clearer (guessed on the year - not clear when filming began)
  • I agree the plot section could be tightened a bit. Just in the first paragraph, what do you think of something like In the prologue, Percy Bysshe Shelley (Douglas Walton) and Lord Byron (Gavin Gordon) praise Mary Shelley (Elsa Lanchester) for her story of Frankenstein and his Monster. Mary reminds them that she wrote her tale to impart a moral lesson, and has more of the story to tell. The scene shifts to the moments at the end of the 1931 Frankenstein. I think this is the same basic infomration, but more succinct.
  • Why in the plot section is it just "(Karloff)", when all the other actors are listed with first and last names (and he is referred to as Boris Karloff in the lead)?
  • Unclear sentence (need to make it clearer sooner that Henry is thought dead) Henry is returned to his ancestral castle home and his fiancée Elizabeth (Valerie Hobson) has his body brought inside. Perhaps Henry's body is returned to his fiancée Elizabeth (Valerie Hobson) at his ancestral castle.

More later, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Various changes made per your suggestions, not exact but see what you think. It's "Karloff" in the plot summary because that's how he's credited in the picture and my understanding is that such notations should follow what's on-screen. Plot summary is 714 words; not really seeing what else can go. Otto4711 (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments The changes look good for the most part - thanks. Here are the rest of my nit picks.

  • I understand your explanation of Karloff vs Boris Karloff (and it is addressed in the Production section where it says he was credited as just "KARLOFF"), but the article is not consistent on this point. I am OK with calling him either name, but think it should be consistent.
  • Changed in plot section.
  • I am not sure if I understand what this sentence means The studio had considered the idea of making a sequel to Frankenstein as early as the 1931 preview screenings of the film, following the changing of the film's original ending to allow for Henry Frankenstein's survival. It seems to imply they changed the ending (Henry survives) to allow a sequel (at least that makes sense) but it doesn't really read that way. If that is what is meant I think it would read better as The studio had considered the idea of making a sequel to Frankenstein as early as the 1931 preview screenings of the film, and changed the film's original ending to allow for Henry Frankenstein's survival. If that is not what happened, I am not sure what the sentence means. Why was the ending changed?
  • Changed.
  • Would it be better to formulate opined that it "[stank] to heaven".[5] as opined that it stank "to heaven".[5]?
  • The full quote is "They've had a script made for a sequel and it stinks to heaven." The article now reads . The script passed the Hays office review but Whale, who by then had been attached to direct, said of this script, "it stinks to heaven".
  • Unclear antecedent could be cleared up as In the novel Frankenstein creates a mate but destroys it without bringing it to life. He [Balderston] also created the Mary Shelley prologue.
  • Changed.
  • Would this be clearer Because of Mae Clarke's ill health, Valerie Hobson replaced her as Henry Frankenstein's love interest, Elizabeth.[3]?
  • Changed.
  • The phrase "is sprung" seems awkward, would this be better should also play Mary Shelley in the film's prologue, to represent how the story – and horror in general – is sprung [springs] from the dark side of one's imagination.[10]?
  • Changed. I didn't write that bit.
  • Would this flow better? Lanchester modeled the Bride's hissing, which Whale filmed at different angles to choose from later, on the hissing of swans. She gave herself a sore throat filming the shot of her hissing and took codeine to relieve the pain.[12]

Now reads Lanchester modeled the Bride's hissing on the hissing of swans. Whale filmed the hissing sequence from multiple angles and Lanchester gave herself a sore throat, which she treated with codeine. I didn't write that bit either.

  • I am hopeless on dashes, but they should be consistent in Breen offered no objection to the cruciform imagery throughout the film – including a scene with the Monster lashed Christ-like to a pole–nor to the presentation of Pretorius as a coded homosexual.[25] Is it word space dash space word, or just word dash word?
  • Hell if I know. Next to images, dash policy is the most arcane thing on this project. Rarely have I met anyone who can tell a hyphen from an en-dash while reading an article but woe betide anyone who has one out of place! Anyway, I fixed this to a spaced en-dash which I believe is correct.
  • I think it would be useful to identify who lauded it in the film is lauded as "the finest of all gothic horror movies".[39]
  • Is there a missing verb here? to pull Frankenstein away from his bride on their wedding night to engage in the unnatural act of [making? creating?] non-procreative life.
  • I think it can be read either with or without the verb but I added the verb anyway.
  • The last point I have is to wonder if would make sense to have a paragraph on the film's legacy, probably at the end of the reception section? For example, no mention is made of the sequel (with Karloff, though not Whale or others). The line "gods and monsters" became the title of a bio-pic about Whale. The Bride is onscreen relatively little, but is an almost instantly recognizable figure, much imitated and parodied. Would it make sense to add something like that?

I hope this helps, well done over all. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the section for the final paragraph, I'm not sure that a separate paragraph is warranted (and I actively loathe anything that even smacks of "In popular culture" sections) but additional information could certainly be added to existing paragraphs to flesh this out. I do say in the production section that the Bride and her hairdo have become icons so that does address that aspect of your suggestion. I would strongly oppose anything that is or would lend itself to a list of parodies or list of appearances of the Bride's image or anything like that. Such sections rarely if ever add value to an article IMHO and tend to draw original research like flies. The article contains a "See also" link to the film Gods and Monsters; I'm wondering if adding a note there that the title was drawn from this film would suffice?
  • Do you think adding an image of Karloff from the first film, howing the differences in makeup (especially the sunken cheeks) would be appropriate or is that just going to open up another can of worms? Otto4711 (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other thing regarding the sequel. There were no immediate plans for another sequel because the first Universal horror cycle ended in 1936 after Dracula's Daughter. The Laemmles lost control of the studio and the new bosses shut down horror production. Son of Frankenstein (1939) was made after the original Frankenstein and Lugosi's Dracula were re-released. Bride wasn't re-released in the US until IIRC 1947 so it had no direct impact on the decision to make Son. I can certainly add that but it seems like it's getting a bit off-track. Otto4711 (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny story about the re-release. Supposedly Whale took some friends to see it. He sat through the whole thing chuckling, and finally an enraged lady patron turned around and said "If you don't like the picture then you can get the hell out!" Otto4711 (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed to support as all of my major concerns have been addressed, here are a few more comments / replies. I am OK with the current note on the iconic nature of the Bride character. I think adding a sentence on the sequel would be useful, if only to say something like Universal's next film in the series, Son of Frankenstein (1939), was made with a different director and cast, except for Karloff, who portrayed the Monster for the final time. Not sure if you want to work in the change of studio heads etc. I think adding a note to the See also links might be useful not only for the Gods and Monsters film, but perhaps also for The Bride. I looked at the articles on the other Universal films with Frankenstein's monster and it seems that the Bride does not appear in any of them. Perhaps a sentence along the lines of Although the Monster would appear in six more Universal films, this was the Bride's only such appearance. would help? Since this is the article about the film, the rerelease should probably be in there too - I like the Whale laughing through his own movie story, not sure if it should be in the article though. Finally, while I like the idea of side by side pictures of the 1931 and 1935 Monsters, I am not sure it would be OK under WP:NFCC. I did look at File:Frankenstein Karloff.jpg and he is definitely more cadaverous / gaunt. I can imagine the counter argument being made that the mental image of more gaunt Monster is fairly clear from the description already in the article. Perhaps see what consensus among other reviwewers here is? For the record I would support it, but it is not absolutely required. Anyway, I am glad to support now and wanted to say I enjoyed reading the article and learned a lot from it. Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I did not collapse my comments and made three specific suggestions in them which have not yet been addressed. SInce this is a film, I think the sequel should be mentioned in a sentence. I would also mention the first re-release of the film. Finally, it seems from reading the other articles that although the monster appeared in 6 or so more Universal studios films, the Bride did not and I wondered if this was worth mentioning. I already supported, so these are just ideas, but I think they deserve some sort of response. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I was going to oppose the page, but some things I have issue with are personal issues, while others are not (but the others are easily mended). I still think a good copy edit from someone familiar with the various MOSs should happen. Just as example, I saw EMdashes with spaces. Per WP:EMDASH, if you're using an EMdash to enclose a phrase then you do not put spaces. I also see heavy quoting in both the plot and the reception section. The bits of dialogue from the film are unnecessary. People can watch the movie for that level of detail. More importantly, this is an issue with the reception section. Wikipedia shouldn't simple be a copy/paste job from sources. It should summarize and paraphrase what others have said. It seems that each of those reviews are basically just paragraphs of quoted text. If you have enough awards, it might be better to separated the Reception into two subsections (Awards and Critical Reception), if not, the awards mentioning in the middle of the reception info seems misplaced. You should keep it all with the recognitions, instead of tacking it on after a review. Another issue is with size of paragraphs. Two and three sentence paragraphs are weak, and should generally be avoided. You should really merge some of those thin paragraphs into others so that they will be stronger as a result (there's not a lot: some in the plot section and one or two in the other sections).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs look good. Check the toolbox, there is one dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All links are live. Otto4711 (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, must be one of those temporary things. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I like it very much. Just some qualms:
1. Can you put some note under plot for a reference/citation?
2. "Elsa Lanchester is credited for Mary Shelley, but in a nod to the earlier film, the Monster's bride is credited only as "?" just as Boris Karloff had been in the opening credits of Frankenstein." <-- Source? Just a need :)
3. Do you have any images for "Christian imagery" or "Homosexual interpretations"? They are really good section and images would be a nice boost to understand it better :).
4. Also one for the plot ;)

Good job though. :) I really like the effort in this. Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 22:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the plot image, rarely is there critical commentary (requirement of non-free images) in the plot itself that would allow an image.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two films' credits sequences serve as sourcing as anyone can watch the films for confirmation. Similarly the film itself serves as a source for the plot per WP:PSTS. Is there something specific that you believe needs sourcing within that section? I could certainly add an image to one or both of the the interp sections but I wonder if they would significantly contribute to understanding. The logical choices would be screen shots but I doubt there's anything that an image could illustrate that text doesn't. The Monster trussed to a pole, the Monster and the hermit together or an image of Pretorius, all can be described. What do other reviewers think? Otto4711 (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are already two images each of the Monster and of the Bride. I doubt another image of the Monster would be OK under WP:NFCC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To share my $0.02, I do not think we need a screenshot for the interpretations section. There is no specific scene to show or any particular screenshot that would illustrate the commentary in this section. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review as follows:

  • File:Brideoffrankposter.jpg — "arguably one of the most important images" is not a particularly good rationale if the intention is to use this poster for identification. Something more along the line of how this poster was one of the main advertising vehicles, and readily identifiable media associated with the film would better serve as the rationale for this as an identifying image for the subject. On the other hand, I am wondering if this poster was copyrighted in the first place, or if so was renewed during 1962–63... if not, this would be in the public domain... Unfortunately, renewed.[74]
  • File:Brideoffrankenstein.jpg — I do not think the standard templates do well to establish strong fair use rationales. In this case, the rationale should explain why this image is used. Based on the text and commentary, it should be along the lines that the distinctive hairdo of the bride, which has become an iconic image of the film, cannot be fully described with words alone, and the picture serves to aid the reader's understanding. A lesser rationale (which on its own would not suffice) that the picture serve to illustrate the full comestics of the two main monster characters could also be included.

The above should be fairly simple to resolve. Jappalang (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend setting up the poster image to be like File:Fight Club poster.jpg. Poster images are acceptable as "cover art" per WP:NFC#Images, like it is acceptable to have cover images for books and albums. For the screenshot, I agree that it could specify the rationale as it is reflected in the article body. I suggest using {{Non-free use rationale}} and maybe following File:Fight Club cigarette burn.jpg. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of the editors going to strengthen the rationales of the images? Jappalang (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried updating both image fair use rationales per your comments (and a few ideas of my own for the poster). Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I edited a bit and added the trademark templates (forgot that the two are trademarked as Universal Studios Monsters). Image issues are resolved. Jappalang (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My oppose is based mainly on feeling that the prose needs another pass. I've made some example edits to remove redundant wording and to clarify a couple of points; I'm happy to explain the reasons for any you may disagree with. Another example is this edit, which changed a slightly lumpy sentence into something cleaner—without losing any of the intended meaning (and others might argue it could still stand swapping out that "as early as"). As others have suggested, a further copy edit may be in order, perhaps by someone unfamiliar with the article. I know, I recently went back to an article of mine that I hadn't looked at properly for a few weeks—one I thought was wonderfully written—only to immediately notice dozens of glaring, clunky phrases. Still, a good, interesting read. All the best, Steve T • C 11:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got me questioning myself now. I don't think it is personal preference; for me, they make it smoother, and therefore more pleasurable, to read. Still, I'm willing to admit being wrong, so let's have a look at one of the examples:

    The studio had considered the idea of making a sequel to Frankenstein as early as the 1931 preview screenings of the film.

    To me, that seems clunky. The "of the film" is especially superfluous, seeming to drag the sentence out past its welcome. Reading that, immediately the redundant words stood out, almost as if in boldface:

    The studio had considered 'the idea of making a sequel to Frankenstein as early as the its 1931 preview screenings of the film.

    Now look at:

    The studio considered making a sequel to Frankenstein as early as its 1931 preview screenings.

    Are you sure you don't think this reads smoother? None of the meaning is lost, yet to me it is cleaner, more precise (with the caveat I mention above). A third opinion may help here. Steve T • C 22:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, it looks like this discussion may be in danger of stalling. Are you content with your initial response to my oppose? If so, I'd be happy to solicit the opinion of a third-party. It might be worth contacting Laser brain for 1) a revisit to see whether his/her prose concerns have been addressed, and 2) an opinion on whether he/she feels my concerns are overly-picky. Steve T • C 09:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) No. 2) No. Otto4711 fixed the issues I listed but disregarded and then archived my request to have the article independently copyedited. Most grammar issues are subjective. Prose can be correct but not brilliant and compelling, which is criterion 1a. You are perfectly justified in making such suggestions. --Laser brain (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think this is a good read and well written after the copyediting that's been done to it. I'd like to see one thing cleared up though. In the Production section the final cost is given as $397,023, yet the first sentence of Reception says "... to date the film had earned approximately $2 million for the studio, roughly double its production costs." Doesn't seem to add up. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... with a projected budget of US$293,750 ($4.61 million today) – almost ...

What does "today" refer to? It will become dated. Does it want to be "as of 2009"? "As of 2008"? What is the precise date? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no problem. It's a fairly new template, see {{Inflation}}. Today really does mean today, automatically updated. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Thanks, Malleus. In other words, the template constantly updates, regardless of the date? So, I should revert my changes? (I think the template should reflect the current date, then, rather than today.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the not unreasonable assumption behind the template is that "today" is the date you're actually reading the article. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... which raises a question mark in my mind over the CD versions of wikipedia. Still, that's not our problem at FAC thankfully. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've reverted myself, but I hope someone will take on the task of getting that template fixed to conform with Precise language (it should at least say "as of March 2009" or something more precise). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The template doesn't need fixing; I've just combined it with {{CURRENTISOYEAR}} as in [75]. What do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much more precise ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 4 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/March_2009&oldid=278815476"