Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2009

April 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 23:50, 18 April 2009 [1].

---

SR Leader Class

Nominator(s): Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the experimental nature of the Leader class represented an important departure from traditional British steam locomotive design in an attempt to address some of the shortcomings associated with their operation. Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – What were the intended advantages of this design? Nowhere (that I can see) does it explain why Southern/BR were investing so much time and effort in this project. Also, just by looking at the photos I can see that it's very different in appearance to pretty much every other steam locomotive (I'd never have guessed it was steam, or a 1940s design, by looking at it) – I think it needs to be explained why the external appearance was so radically different to everything that came before and after. (Very interesting article, though; I'd never heard of it before). – iridescent 20:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Tech. Review

• There are no disambiguation links as checked with the dab finder tool.
• There are not dead external links as checked with the links checker tool.
• There are no errors in ref formatting as checked with WP:REFTOOLS.--Truco 21:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – Iridescent, the advantages regarding this locomotive are there, such as the modernisation of the steam fleet, user-friendly innovations etc., for example the leader states that: "The Leader project became part of Bulleid's desire to modernise the steam locomotive along the principles based upon experience with the Southern Railway's fleet of electric stock. In finalising the locomotive, Bulleid saw that changes regarding the labour intensity of steam operation were being mooted, and in response the new locomotive was to push forward the boundaries of steam power in the little time available before nationalisation in 1948."

The Southern Railway seemed to take the view that 'if Bulleid asked for square wheels, then give them to him', (St. John Thomas & Whitehouse, SR 150: A Century and a Half of the Southern Railway (Newton Abbot: David & Charles, 1983), 25), and apart from this rather vexing statement by the 'Top Brass' at Waterloo, the reason why they the the Leader was constructed at all has never really been ascertained. Officially, as mentioned in the text, it was supposed to replace the aging Drummond M7 locomotives. Suffice to say, to go any further into it would start entering the realms of original research and speculation, as there is still heated debate as to 'why' they were constructed.

As to the photographs, it is mentioned later on in the article that the design was intended to be put through carriage washers as an economy measure in terms of manpower, and the fact that a cab at either end improved visibility and operation procedures. I hope this goes some way towards allaying some of you comments. Thanks for your interest, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• • This isn't an objection, but I think the article ought to make that much more prominent. The "non-train" reader's first reaction to this is going to be "That's a steam locomotive? Really?" – it looks so radically different to later steam designs like the Class 9F for example. Since the experimental nature is (presumably) what makes this design significant, I think it warrants being spelled out in the lead. (That's just my personal opinion, though; as I say, it's certainly not something I'd oppose over.) – iridescent 21:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – Well any suggestions, queries etc., it's all good! But I think the fact that it says "experimental locomotive" in the first sentence of the leader paragraph should highlight to the uninitiated reader that they are seeing something that doesn't quite follow the grain... --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• The Harensape ref needs a publisher

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

clarification The images are claimed to be under expired crown copyright. The state and the government are two seperate entities, and these images were produced by a state owned industry, what makes you think they fall under crown copyright? Fasach Nua (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The crown is the head of state in the UK. All official government documents are therefore crown copyright. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you have a reference for the management structure of BR during the period these images were taken? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What has BR's management structure got to do with anything? It was a state-owned industry; the UK's head of state has been the crown since 1688, hence the crown copyright. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

British Transport Commission explains the setup 1947-1962; British Railways Board 1962-2001. (The articles are currently unsourced, but accurate.) British Rail was a trading name of the Commmission/Board, which were in turn part of the Department for Transport – so British Rail was a "true" trading arm of the government, rather than a Northern Rock style "private company in which the government happens to be the majority shareholder", which seems to be the confusion here. – iridescent 21:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the article states that "Its first chairman was Lord Hurcomb", but it doesnt say if this was a managerial board or a board of directors and the article doesnt have any external refs, do you know of an external link for this? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Official summary of the history of the management of the nationalised railways at the UK Government National Archives. – iridescent 19:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments by Malleus Fatuorum. I think the article is generally very good, but some of the prose reads very awkwardly to me, to the extent I'm not certain I understand some of it. A few examples from the lead:

• "In finalising the locomotive, Bulleid saw that changes regarding the labour intensity of steam operation were being mooted, and in response the new locomotive was to push forward the boundaries of steam power in the little time available before nationalisation in 1948." Finalising the locomotive or the design? What does "mooted" mean here? It generally has two meaning, the older legal "hypothesised", or the newer "unimportant". Which does it mean here? Why was Bulleid so keen to "push forward the boundaries of steam power anyway"?

• "The Leader project became part of Bulleid's desire to modernise the steam locomotive along the principles based upon experience with the Southern Railway's fleet of electric stock." Became part of his desire? So it wasn't why he designed it, but only later did it become important to him?

• "However, these innovations were some of the reasons why the project was discontinued in the early 1950s." Surely it wasn't the innovations that caused the problems, but their failure?

• "Only one Leader was completed for trial purposes, although four more were in varying states of completion." How many were completed for purposes other than "trial"? Four more were in varying stages of completion when?

• Is it really necesssary to label the image in the infobox as a photograph? The other pictures aren't identified as photographs.

--Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – I think the leader section is better than before after taking on board the above. However, its the case that I can understand the rest of the article, so I need someone to literally point out the thorny issues. Please note that some of the more technical sections are unavoidable, as they provide key reasons for the failure of this locomotive. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Although the changes over the past week have all been cosmetic, I think they're a significant improvement; it's now clear why this was a significant design, why it came about, and why it was abandoned. I think it could be improved with an expansion of the "End of the project" legacy section explaining what innovations (if any) from the design were taken forward and used on other locomotives (the "peat-burning locomotive to a similar design" produced for Ireland, which is briefly mentioned, ought to at the very least be a redlink as it surely warrants its own article even if it doesn't yet have one). That's a trivial point, though. A nod of the head is due to Malleus on this one as well, who yet again has demonstrated a gift for cleaning up articles on obscure subjects. – iridescent 12:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I'm ready to support this interesting and comprehensive article on a rather obscure steam locomotive as well. I've just got one further very minor point to raise, which I seem to remember has come up during the reviews of other loco articles. It's to do with the formatting of a class name, like "Pacific". Ought that not to be italicised? I checked with this similar FA, but it seems to format class names inconsistently. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. As the nominator knows, this article has been on my Watch-list for some weeks and I raised one or two points on the Talk-page. Malleus's recent edits have greatly improved the prose and have brought it to FA standard. The article satisfies all the FA criteria. Graham Colm ^Talk 13:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:50, 18 April 2009 [2].

---

Rufous-crowned Sparrow

Nominator(s): Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

After a long absence, I’ve decided to nominate another bird article for FA status- my namesake, the Rufous-crowned Sparrow. I believe that this article meets the criteria and covers all researched aspects of this fairly random bird quite well. Thanks to Philcha for giving the article a great and thorough GA review and to Jimfbleak, Casliber, and Shyamal for handling most of the GA review when I was called away for real life issues. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• [[American sparrow|sparrow]]. Why not have the more accurate American Sparrow unpiped
• | subdivision = (in taxobox). Personally, I'd just put "see text", but if you keep the list better as A. r. australis etc
• rufous in color - isn't in color redundant?
• second para starts in singular then drifts to plural
• Oh dear, you have both citation and cite style references, can't do that. Howell and Webb needs changing to cite book
• Journal refs have variations in the degree of capitalisation compare refs 17 &18 in the article titles, prefer a standard style with minimum capitalisation jimfbleak (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• thrives in the open areas that result from an area being burned. repeats "area" - what about thrives in the open areas created by burning. or thrives in open areas cleared by burning."? jimfbleak (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Fixed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that this article is essentially well written, but I'll wait until Guettarda's very reasonable issues are addressed before offering what can only be moral support given my involvement in the article jimfbleak (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
• Current ref 11 (howell..) is a publication (book?) and should be formatted as such, with the publisher given

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

All fixed. Whith 11, I looked at it and decided it is closest to a journal, so switched the ref. Thank you. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• See my edit summaries for MoS cleanup needs. Why are bird calls in WP:ITALICS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sincethe use of italics is standard within the bird projects, I've asked Sandy for clarification jimfbleak (talk) 06:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through and eliminated the empty parameters. I didn't find any other logical punctuation mistakes though. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Tech. Review

• Ref formatting (checked with WP:REFTOOLS) and external links (checked with the links checker tool) are all up to standards.
• Fix the 1 disambiguation link--Truco 17:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Disambiged. Thank you for running this check. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Sorry that this is so long and nit-picky...I like the article, I think you've done a good job.

Infobox

• Image captions should, in general, be understandable without direct reference to the text; thus, Aimophila ruficeps eremoeca, not A. r. eremoeca.
• A reference is provided for one synonym (Peucaea ruficeps), but not for the other (Ammodromus ruficeps). Is there some reason for this? Also, since Ammodromus ruficeps appears to be the basionym (do they use that term for animals?) why is Peucaea ruficeps listed first? Using priority or alphabetical order to determine the sequence would make sense to me, but not "reverse" priority or alpha order.

Lead:

• The final sentence of the lead ("Although the species is considered to be of Least Concern...")
  • "Although the species...some subspecies" repeats the word "species" too often. The word "species" also appears at the end of the previous sentence ("a range of mammal and reptile species"), where it's actually a little superfluous ("mammals and reptiles" is the object of the sentence, not "species"). It would read better if the word (sub)species wasn't repeated so often in so short a space.
  • "Least Concern" is an IUCN category, and should at the very least be linked. Ideally, I think, it should be translated into plain English (and linked).
  • The sentence is a "some this, some disagree" kind of statement, but there's no sense of who it is who gets the make the pronouncement that's being disagreed with by some. Rather than "is considered", which sounds like a statement of fact, "has been classified" might be more appropriate, since it captures the fact that LC is a conclusion based on some criteria, and it may validly be questioned.

Taxonomy:

• First sentence: "which consists of the American sparrows and Eurasian buntings"; "consists of" suggests that these are two distinct groups. Are they really, or are American sparrows and Eurasian buntings just different names applied to the same group? (If the latter, then I would recommend "which consists of, the American sparrows and Eurasian buntings").

• Although all are emberizids, the genera in the two groups are distinct, and each grouping has its own article jimfbleak (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• OK, cool. Thanks Jim. Guettarda (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Although Ammodromus ruficeps is explained, Peucaea ruficeps is not. Nor, for that matter, is there any explanation of why it was transferred to Aimophila, nor by whom.

Subspecies

• Twelve subspecies, but "up to eighteen". I'm immediately curious about the other six. What are they? (Obviously this isn't a big deal, but for completeness they could be mentioned as well). Also the reference that is used to support this statement (and quite a few others throughout the article) doesn't have this info (or really much info at all). I'm guessing the target page has been changed; the link should either be updated or removed, IMO.

The source website is weird in that all of the pages have the same address. In the column on the left, there is a button for Taxonomy that contains the source's list of eighteen subspecies. Is there a way to direct the viewer directly to that subpage? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Clicking on the link and selecting "open link in a new tab" (or whatever the IE equivalent is) usually works in a case like that. And, as it turns out, the source for the taxonomy is ITIS. Guettarda (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• A. r. canescens - same issues as the lead; "species...subspecies" feels clumsy, and Least Concern" isn't explained or linked.

• A. r. obscura - "and formerly Santa Catalina" or "and formerly on Santa Catalina"? (Probably just a personal quirk, but the latter feels better; feel free to ignore this.)

• A. r. obscura - is post-1940s really "recent"? (I realise it is in some contexts, but "seems to have recently colonized Anacapa Island.[7] No records exist of them before 1940.[10]" could easily be re-phrased as something like "seems to have recently colonized Anacapa Island.[7] No records exist of them before after 1940.[10]" (although it may be valuable to preserve the basis for this conclusion - the lack of records).

• A. r. sanctorum - "However, t[T]his subspecies is now believed to be extinct". The "however" doesn't seem to belong, and the "now" would only be applicable if Van Rossem believed he was describing a living species, but it's now believed to have been extinct at the time.

• A. r. boucardi - there's a sudden change in style from "was decribed by... It is found" (used in the second sentence of all the previous sections) to "described by,...is found". Personally I prefer the latter wording, and I would prefer a less repetitive structure, but it feels inconsistent to change at this point. (I also can't think of a way to be less repetitive and be consistent.) A. r. australis adds a third phrasing structure.

Do you think it would work better if I rotated the three styles and ignored consistency? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know. That might work. As would a single consistent (but repetitive) format. Guettarda (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Description

• This section uses Imperial units, as does the "Distribution" section, but the "Ecology" section uses SI
• {{Convert}} is used here, but not elsewhere (not a big deal, but why not be consistent?) Also there's a parameter "..." used, which I don't think should be there - I think it's just used in the template documentation to suggest that there are other possible parameters you can add.

• Fifth sentence "or area just above the eye" - I'm glad to see the terminology explained, but given the flow of the sentence (it's immediately followed by the word "are"), it might flow better as "The face and supercilium (the area above the eye) are gray..."

• Sixth sentence: "This sparrow also has a crown..." - "has a crown" reads like a literal crown. Simply saying "The [[Crown (anatomy)|crown]] ranges from rufous to chestnut" might be less confusing. I also think that the "in coloration" is unnecessary here. "Coloration" is just jargon for "colo(u)r", and given the context, it should be obvious that you're talking about chestnut the colour, not chestnut the nut/tree/wood.

Distribution and habitat

• It might be helpful it concepts like "migratory" and "territoriality" were linked.

Ecology and behavior

• Might it be helpful to link "habitat"?
• While "rodent run" is explained, "broken wing" and "tumbling off the bush" are not. Explaining one while ignoring the other two makes the section seems a tad imbalanced. In addition, do we have articles that explain these displays? If so, they should be linked to. If not...why not?!! :)

Diet

• The final paragraph is (a) only one sentence long, and (b) distractingly passive-voiced.

Not sure how to fix this one. Not much is known on the sparrow's drinking habits, so the paragraph is stuck at one sentence. Per the passive voice, this is based solely on limitated observations, which make be hesitant to move away from including that this is only when observed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Reproduction

• First paragraph
  • The males sing "to attract a mate" throughout the mating season: is "mating season" distinct from breeding season? (Off-topic rant: Why does mating season redirect to estrous cycle?)

I don't believe so, and even if it is, I don't think that there is an established, universal dividing mark. And I don't know why mating season would redirect there instead of the breeding season article. It is a bit strange. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• • The final sentence about monogamy seems out of place, tacked on to the end of a section about male-male interactions
• Second para: I would recommend linking breeding season, but the target article kinda sucks.
• Third para:
  • link "incubation" to avian incubation?
  • Fourth sentence: "once" the young leave the nest, or "when" the young leave the nest?
  • Sixth sentence: "Males guard their territories year-round" - this seems out of place here. Maybe in the first para?
• Fourth para: single sentence, bit short for a stand-alone para

Conservation

• The first sentence is dense and has a jargony feel. It would be vastly improved if it were translated into "friendlier" English.
• Third sentence starts with the word "however", but actually builds upon the previous sentence, it doesn't contrast with it.
• The para ends somewhat abruptly with "Additionally...known to have been poisoned by...warfarin".

Guettarda (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for taking the time with the article to do a review this comprehensive. I believe that I have addressed all of your concerns except for two- the water paragraph and why the species was switched from Ammodramus to Aimophila. With the water, I want to keep the bit about not enough research in the sentence, which I’m not sure how to do with an active sentence. For the movement between genera, I cannot find anything through the might of Google that mentions why the switch was made. As Aimophila existed when the species was described, the only thing that I can figure out was that Cassin made a mistake which a later author corrected. Again, I haven’t found anything even suggesting this. Again, thank you for examining the article and pointing out numerous means of improvement. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments: This is a great article, Rufous! It doesn't feel robust, though: other articles on similar species (such as the recently-featured Tree Sparrow are about twice this size. I'm not sure it's comprehensive quite yet. The lede is still very short (just the two paragraphs). Tree Sparrow has an entire section on Relationships with humans that is barely touched upon in this article. Obviously, if there hasn't been as much research, there's no way you can expand upon what doesn't exist. Yet I get the feeling there's more to be said here. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take another look through the refs, but per a Relationship with humans section I'm pretty sure there isn't anything out there. The sparrow isn't particularly noticeable or striking to get extra attention, lives in largely unpopulated areas, isn't endangered overall, and is a New World bird and therefore is less likely to have any art depicting it commented upon. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I'm going to take a deeper look at the article over the next couple of days, and offer additional observations. Overall, the article looks really good. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As the main editor of Tree Sparrow, I'd agree with RCS - the Tree Sparrow breeds across the whole of Eurasia, is well studied, and as an urban bird in east Asia, it has been immortalised in Oriental art. The RCS has a restricted range in non-urban habitat, and is little studied. I'll see if I can find some more, just in case jimfbleak (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the double-check, Jim. I do understand that the two species may not be directly comparable. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 05:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

this says of RCS "known only to the fortunate few" and comments on its retiring nature. There is no hint of any myth, legend or folklore that I can find, even without looking for reliable sources, and although it has attracted some research interest, it can't compare with Tree Sparrow, which is almost a standard for studying non-migratory species. There is nothing on Aimophila taxonomy to compare with Passer, RCS hasn't been introduced anywhere, and it doesn't use agricultural land. Whilst it might be foolhardy to say there is nothing else out there, I think this is probably about as comprehensive as it can get jimfbleak (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. My concerns above have been addressed, with an expanded lede and 5k of additional material. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional support on addressing Guettarda's concerns. I was going to oppose b/c, at just over 2000 words, this article did not seem to be possibly long enough to be comprehensive (some sections in FAs I've contributed to are longer than that). But I highly respect jimfbleak's expertise in this area and if he says there really isn't much more to say, then there isn't much more to say AFAIC. --mav (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Image review - File:Chaparral California.jpg - The author and the uploader of this image are different, therefore we cannot be sure that the author has released the rights to the image. Could you contact the author and ask him to verify that he has indeed released the image? He can declare so on the image description page by signing a statement to that effect. Awadewit (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I've left the author a note. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm the photographer and I uploaded the picture, making it public domain. It looks like someone transferred it to Commons, thereby becoming the "uploader". Curiously, I'm not seeing anything in the deletion log -- that must have been before we retained deleted images. If you would like (since it's low-res -- 400x300) I can dig out the original high-res image and give you that instead (I was using a dialup in the early days of Wikipedia, so often uploaded low-res images). Antandrus (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Antandrus personally uploaded the file in a larger size at File:Chaparral1.jpg, which I've replaced in the article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Image issue resolved. All other images have adequate descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Still needs some work. Sasata (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Conditional Support: full support after the addition of hot-off-the-press phylogenetic analysis :) Sasata (talk) 06:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Has everything I want to see, and it's nice to have the extra descriptions in the subspecies section. Sasata (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Lede: link rufous, raptors (I thought they went extinct millions of years ago?),

• "Nests ... typically hold two to five eggs." It's unclear to me if this is due to limitations of the volume of the cup (what the sentence implies), or if 2–5 eggs is the typical brood size.

• Taxonomy: "Birds in the genus Aimophila tend to be medium-sized" as a non-bird enthusiast this size descriptor means nothing to me, could you give a numerical range instead? (same thing with long bills and tails next sentence) Later, the description section says the RCS is "a smallish sparrow".

Smallish is a direct quote from Byers and seems to refer to the RcS in relationship to the other members of its genus. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• link scrubland

• It's not mentioned that the genus name is Greek

• There's a large section listing all of the known subspecies and who described them in that year and what locale, but there's no indication of what characteristics make them unique (isn't that the most important?).

Subspecies descriptions are extremely important; alas, I am unable to find a description of each subspecies anywhere, as the resources just note range and author. The few subspecies I have found specific descriptions for are vague, saying things like "darker than the subspecies to the north and lighter than the subspecies to the south". Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. The DaCosta paper might have some more info about the subspecies that could be fit in somewhere in that section. Sasata (talk) 06:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Description: what's a wingbar?

• There's an errant quote mark

• "The bill is yellow and conical shaped." It is either cone-shaped or conical, but not the redundant "conical shaped"

• what was "scrubland" in the taxonomy section is "shrubland" here

• Conservation: "range of about 463,323 square miles (1,200,001.0 km2)," Surely there has to be a way to remove the 1.0 with the convert template?

• Perhaps I missed it somewhere, but is the lifespan mentioned?

• Some very recent phylogenetic analysis has been performed on the Aimophila genus and this data should be mentioned here.

I'd love to read the article, but am unable to find it on the internet beyond an abstract. I'll leave a note on the WT:Bird page to see if anyone gets the Journal of Avian Biology. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I find the double periods at the end of many of the references annoying. As far as I understand it, the title doesn't implicitly have a period in it, so it shouldn't be added in the template.

• There's inconsistent capitalization of titles throughout the "Further reading" section, under "Articles".

• Why no ISBN for the Colins reference?

• Parker SA & Stotz D (1977) - no page #'s

I believe I've addressed all of your comments except for the three with detailed notes above. Thank you for reviewing the article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments A very good effort, and nearly there, I'd say. I'm wondering about a couple of things:

• This sentence, from the description section, seems a bit silly (when you look at the conversions): It ranges from 15 to 23 grams (1.0 to 1.0 oz) in weight and averages about 19 grams (1.0 oz). Do all the weights really translate to 1.0 oz.? If so, it needs to be reorganized somehow.
• The writing in the subspecies section is very repetitious, and the style is very basic; each section is pretty much a copy of

A. r. rupicola was described by Van Rossem in 1946.[10] It is found in the mountains of southwestern Arizona.

How about varying some: A. r. rupicola, described by Van Rossem in 1946,[10] is found in the mountains of southwestern Arizona.[11]

MeegsC | Talk 11:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL. That is what I get for trusting a citation template:) Thanks for pointing it out, though I had to go to manually typing it out to make it work. I put three(!) distinct styles in the subspecies subsection as well, and descriptions are now on their way. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick Break Hello. I'm leaving for a 36 hour trip in a few minutes. I believe all issues above are addressed except for the new Aimophila paper, which Sabine's Sunbird has a copy of and I'll try to get when I get back. Thank you. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've got the article and will try to put the information in later tonight as well as fatten out the lede. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, the paper has now been integrated into the article and the lede has been beefed up a bit. I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) that all issues raised have now been addressed. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"A 2008 study of the genus Aimophila divided it into four genera..." I think it should be mentioned somewhere that it's phylogenetic analysis, and did it really divide the genus into genera? Sasata (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll add that, and the paper recommended splitting the genus into four genera, though one was lumped into a seperate, pre-existing genus. Obviously, the list-keepers haven't had a chance to evaluate and actually accept the split due to it coming out this year, but the paper recommended it. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Moral Support. Because of my involvement in this article I have an obvious COI, and I don't expect my vote to carry any weight. However, the article is at the stage now where I would support if I were not compromised. jimfbleak (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. (moral or otherwise) Like Jim, have been involved and have a COI as a WP:Birds member, and I also agree with comment about richness (or otherwise) of sources c/w Tree Sparrow from Jim etc. I reckon it is over the line. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:50, 18 April 2009 [3].

---

Forest Park (Portland)

Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it finally meets all the criteria. This urban park is large, heavily forested, and heavily used. I thought the article was nearly comprehensive months ago, but User:llywrch, who did a peer review, made many helpful suggestions about traffic, crime, and other park problems that I had completely overlooked. In addition, User:EncMstr provided photos of trails, trees, and trail workers that significantly improved the article. Finetooth (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Finetooth (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Tech. Review -- Ref formatting (checked with WP:REFTOOLS), disambiguation and external links (checked with the dab finder tool and links checker tool) are all up to standards.--Truco 17:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Truco. Finetooth (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support I read this with interest, and could find little obviously wrong with it, apart from a formatting oversight, which I fixed. I'm sure that others will find nit-picks I've missed, but good luck with this. jimfbleak (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and support. Finetooth (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Another impressive article improved by Finetooth! I'd like to see a little more clear coverage of how Forest Park relates to Macleay Park (part of it, and maybe the best-known part locally), Washington Park (adjoining), the 40 mile loop. All are mentioned in passing, but I'd imagine many readers would want to understand how the park relates to these other major entities. Also, I believe Metro (Oregon regional government) purchased a large parcel of land adjoining the park after a 2006 ballot measure -- if that's as significant as I think it is, it bears mention. I'll do a little research. Fine article, though. Look forward to !voting support soon. -Pete (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Metro's page about Forest Park strategy
  • Natural areas top Metro's to do list, 2007 Oregonian article (requires login)
  • 2002 press release about Metro purchase of 31 acre parcel adjoining Forest Park (so apparently they've done this at least twice)
  • Forest Park fallacy, a 2006 article analyzing the claims of Forest Park as being the "biggest" anything. (A subsequent letter to the editor noted that the study cited for this article was done prior to the addition of 800 acres to the park.)

Thank you for your kind words and helpful suggestions. In response to your suggestion about Macleay Park, I have altered the last part of the "History section to say, "These smaller parks became part of the larger park when it was finally created. Some of them, such as Macleay Park, are still referred to by their original names even though they are part of Forest Park." I hope that makes the connection more clear, and I thank you for the suggestion.

In the "Wildwood Trail" section of the article, Washington Park is already described as "adjacent" to Forest Park. The map in the infobox shows their exact physical relationship, and in response to your suggestion I have changed the map caption to say, "Location of Forest Park and Washington Park in Portland". Washington Park is so small on the map that it would be easy to miss without this addition to the caption. Thanks for raising this issue.

The "Wildwood Trail" section says that 27 miles (43 km) of Wildwood Trail is in Forest Park and that the trail is , "... the longest section of the 40 Mile Loop, a trail network of roughly 150 miles (240 km) reaching many parts of the Portland metropolitan area." I honestly can't think of what to add to this that would make it more clear. The 40 Mile Loop article to which I've linked spells out the details and includes a map of the citywide trail network.

Your point about new land acquisition is a good one. I will carefully read the material you've provided links to and add something about what Metro is up to. I'll post an update here when I've sorted this out. Thanks again. Finetooth (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The link to the Portland Tribune article was most helpful. In light of the doubts about the "largest urban forest" claim, I've softened the lead to say "one of the largest", and in the History section I've changed the text to include the controversy, citing the Tribune. Finetooth (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad the comments are helpful, and I like what you've done. I'm sorry I didn't catch this when in peer review, as I understand these are kind of big concerns and take some time to address.

I do think that Forest Park's role as something of a cornerstone of Portland's park system, and its relation to these other elements, needs to be emphasized a bit more, though I don't know exactly how. Here's a couple options: the "Wildwood Trail" section could become a subsection of a new "Recreational use" section, which could have a brief overview paragraph. Or, the "Wildwood Trail" section and the "History" section could become subsections of a new "Human use" section, again with a brief overview. Thoughts on that? -Pete (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops. We had an edit conflict, I think. I was about to add that your suggestions about Metro were spot on. I've added a paragraph about Metro's work to the bottom of the History section. That was a very good catch on your part. Most of the acreage that Metro has acquired or protected is outside the park boundaries and doesn't show up in the official park size. Nevertheless, it is important to the health of the park and the creatures that live there. Finetooth (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

While I'm willing to look for a reliable source that says the park is a cornerstone of the Portland park system, I don't believe it would be a good idea to create new sections along the lines you are suggesting. Finetooth (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, maybe the quote I've just added to the Geography section will do the trick. Does that help? Finetooth (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

After further rumination, I've decided to remove the Houle quote, which doesn't seem to add much that is substantive, and to work with your Recreational use suggestion instead of resisting like a cat that doesn't want a bath. More later. Finetooth (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have reasonably addressed the cornerstone question this time. Looking outside the box, which was the park boundary in this case, I added a regional parks and trails context into which the park fits. 'Recreational use" morphed into "Recreational network" and became more interesting the more I looked. Please let me know what you think and if you have further suggestions. Finetooth (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for putting so much effort into that. I meant to work on it myself, but wikidrama, real life, work, and general laziness conspired to keep me away from this fine project for a bit. Your efforts have exceeded my expectations in nearly every respect. The only further change I'd make is to shift the emphasis on Metro's 2006/07 activity to putting it in the context of its Natural Areas Program, which it began exploring in 1991. I'd suggest something along the lines of the following paragraph (which probably belongs before the paragraph about the 2005 Oregonian article). I'm including it here instead of in the article, because it probably oughtta have that Finetooth polish before it goes in. (As a side note, I'm really disappointed in how little information about the program itself exists on Metro's site. Reading between the lines, it appears to be a major program with a life of its own within the agency; however, their web site treats only specific initiatives, and the new oversight committee, not the program itself. I think I may try to contact the committee and request that they update their web site with this info.)

“ Metro, a regional governmental agency for the Oregon portion of the Portland metropolitan area, began exploring a Natural Areas Program in 1991, to purchase and protect natural areas. In 1995 the program targeted 320 acres within and adjacent to the park for acquisition, for the purpose of protecting habitat, increasing recreational access, and other goals. A 2006 bond measure allowed for the purchase of more land; to date, more than 865 acres have been added to the park through the Natural Areas Program. ”

-Pete (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing...I actually liked that Houle quote. I think you initially added it out of a desire to add substance to the article; and you're right, it wasn't the ideal way to do that. However, I am of the (perhaps minority) view that the occasional quotation like this really adds color to an article, as long as it's not a substitute for substantive citations. You may recall a similar discussion we had about the Tim Egan quote on Columbia River. I'd love to see that quote included somewhere. It's not going to diminish my enthusiastic support !vote for this FAC, but I'm just sayin'. -Pete (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Did I say "one other thing?" I can't get enough of thinking about this article. I wonder if there is a good way to adjust the language at the end of the article. I remember the incident well about the homeless man and his daughter. It seems to me that (apart from a little initial, unfounded nervousness about the nature of their relationship) that the man was generally warmly received by the community and the press after they were found. Technically, it is accurate to say he committed a crime; however, I think that captures only a minor part of the story. The man was generally perceived as a father doing his best to provide for his daughter in spite of his significant lack of resources and, if I recall correctly, significant PTSD as a Vietnam vet (manifesting as an aversion to urban homeless life, both as his own preference and out of concern for his daughter's safety). He had a library in their makeshift home, and was doing his best to provide an education to his daughter. I believe there was a significant charitable effort that resulted in a large number of people donating money to enable him to rent a home.

Anyway, I don't think there's an obvious way to put it in another section, but I think there's probably a way to adjust the wording so that it makes it clear that "criminal" is not the primary identification for this man. -Pete (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>Thanks, Pete. I'll consider all this and work on improvements. Finetooth (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have re-added the Houle quotation. I re-organized the "Crime" section as "Crime and other trouble" to include dogs, lack of funding, etc., and to allow splitting the father-daughter off into their own paragraph instead of having them rather insensitively lumped in with the murderers. I agree with you that they deserved sympathy and help, and I'm glad they got it. I revised the Natural Areas Program along the lines you suggested, adding the 1991 inception date and citation, and clarifying that the program covers projects in three counties. However, I think it's very important to note the 865 acres have not been "added to the park through the Natural Areas Program." The source you cite goes on to say, "More than 600 of these acres are located in proximity to the northern end of the existing park boundaries... " I've tried to make more clear in the revised paragraph that the Metro additions are mostly outside the park and that they include environmental easements on private land as well as actual land purchases by the public entity. Thanks for these additional helpful suggestions. Finetooth (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Image review - All images have excellent descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for checking these and for your kind words. Finetooth (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know for sure, but I think the ISBN for Hiking and Running Guide to Forest Park is ISBN 9781135134020. 98.166.139.216 (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. My set of the maps seems to have no ISBN printed on it. However, Powell's Books lists the set under the ISBN you cite, and I have added it to the map citations in the article. By the way, although you meant well, I'd rather not use the Harvard citations, and I removed them. It's best to discuss changes to the citation format with the main contributing editors before changing the format. I more-or-less see how the Harvards work, but I find them distracting. Finetooth (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. Enthusiastically. Thanks, Finetooth, for your thoughtful consideration of my feedback, and for your hard work both before and during this FAC. Great work! -Pete (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Pete, for your kind words and your many helpful suggestions. Finetooth (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support, nice work. I couldn't find any issues. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Julian, for your kind words and support. Finetooth (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:50, 18 April 2009 [4].

---

Zanzibar Revolution

Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This article was previously nominated in February but I delisted it as there were issues brought up with the prose. The article has had a peer review (by User:Brianboulton) and a copy edit (by User:EyeSerene) since then which has (hopefully!) improved the prose. I have waited until now to renominate as I wanted to wait until I had enough free time to rectify any problems that are picked up on. I believe the article is meets all of the Featured Article Criteria and is a good treatment of the subject - Dumelow (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments

• Using WP:REFTOOLS: The ref {{Harvnb|Speller|2007|pp=6–7}} is duplicated and appears in the ref section more than once, a ref name name should be used instead.
• Fix the 1 disambiguation link.
• External links are up to speed, as checked with the links checker tool.--Truco 15:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it out, I have fixed the duplicated ref. I have left in the link to the Shirazi disambiguation page as I think it is relevant in the context. The link explains that a Shirazi is a person from Shiraz (in Iran) and describes its different meaning in East Africa - Dumelow (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thats fine by me.--Truco 15:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• CommentSupport: My remaining prose issues have all been resolved satisfactorily. There are possibly some outstanding image questions, which an image review should resolve quite easily, and I see no reason for withholding support. Brianboulton (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I gave this a long peer review recently, and was impressed with its thoroughness and the evident depth of research. I want to support, but at present there are too many prose glitches to satisfy criterion 1a. Many of these were not present when I reviewed the article.

Many thanks for giving this another check over Brian, it is much appreciated. I will go through your points and try to solve each one, cheers - Dumelow (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Lead: The use of the word "democratic" to describe these elections is perhaps misplaced, given the distorted results they produced. Democratic suggest fair, which clearly these elections were not. I suggest either delete "democratic", or substitute it with "popular".

I have replaced it with parliamentary which specifies that they were elections to a governing body - Dumelow (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Revolution section: "The Sultan, Prime Minister Muhammad Shamte Hamadi, and members of the cabinet fled the island on the royal yacht Seyyid Khalifa..." Need to clarify that the Sultan and the prime mnister were not the same person. Suggest: "The Sultan, together with Prime Minister Muhammad Shamte Hamadi and members of the cabinet, fled the island on the royal yacht Seyyid Khalifa..."

I have followed your suggestion here - Dumelow (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• (Same section) – very clumsy: "Karume had been removed from the island for his safety by the branch secretary for the ASP on Pemba, a Ugandan named John Okello." What island had Karume been removed from (and is "removed from", suggesting involuntariness, the right word)? Also, as written is sounds as though Pemba was a Ugandan named John Okello.

I have replaced that bit with: "The ASP branch secretary for Pemba, a Ugandan called John Okello, had sent Karume to the mainland to ensure his safety". Let me know if that is any better - Dumelow (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Better, but "a Ugandan called John Okello" sounds a bit amateurish. I'd say: "the Ugandan-born ex-police officer John Okello"

You are right, that sounds much better. I have changed it - Dumelow (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Aftermath: "Many Arabs fled to safety in Oman,[] and by Okello's order no Europeans were harmed." "and" is the wrong cojunction since the clauses are not sequential. "Although", perhaps

Good point, changed to although - Dumelow (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• (Same section) – "...the Freedom Military Force (FMF), which patrolled the streets and became involved with looting." Again I'm unhappy with the simple "and". I think a few more words are necessary here, to explain that the FMF was a generally lawless force which participated in looting rather than controlling it.

I have changed this slightly, it now reads "and looted Arab property", which hopefully now conveys the right meaning - Dumelow (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• (Same section) – "In April the government formed the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and completed the disarmament of Okello's remaining FMF militia, and on 26 April Karume announced that he had negotiated a union with Tanganyika to form the new country of Tanzania." Two "ands" in this sentence. A full stop is required after "FMF militia", the rest being a separate sentence.

Thanks, I split it as you suggested - Dumelow (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Foreign reaction: "However, the British High Commissioner in Zanzibar, Timothy Crosthwait, reported no instances of British nationals being attacked and advised against intervention, and by the evening the troops in Kenya had been reduced to four hours' readiness." Another and...and sentence, needs attention.

I split this sentence and expanded the second one a bit - Dumelow (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• (Same section) – "Warsaw Pact countries" rather than just "Warsaw Pact"

Done - Dumelow (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• (Same section) – –"Some members of the Umma Party had received training in Cuba, and wore Cuban military fatigues and beards in the style of Fidel Castro,[] and the new government's recognition of the German Democratic Republic (the first African government to do so) and North Korea was further evidence to the Western Powers that Zanzibar was aligning itself closely with the communist bloc." Yet another sentence with the inappropriate "and" conjunction. I am going to stop pointing these out, but suggest you go through the rest of the article to look for other instances. Basically, "and" connects related or sequential clauses in a sentence. Castro beards and the recognition of the GDR and North Korea are not related or sequential and require separate sentences.

OK I have split this sentence and will take a look through for other such "and" sentences, thanks - Dumelow (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have tweaked the above sentence a bit. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• (Same section) – last sentence of third paragraph: "Despite this..." - despite what? The words are unnecessary (and yet another benighted "and" sentence)

Yep, I have split this up and added some clarification - Dumelow (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Check again: I think you've lost some words in your editing, after "known". It doesn't make sense at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Doh! Yep I dropped "to be receiving advisers from", I have readded it. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Images: Three NFU images is probably excessive. An image reviewer needs to look at this. The caption in the 40th anniversary picture needs to clarify that this "President Karume" is the son of the first president. In the image description of the HMS Centaur pic it would help if you gave the page number of the magazine from which it is uploaded.

I am not great with images, there are probably too many fair-use pictures here. I am considering getting rid of the one of Karume or Okello's men (I think it is importance to have the mass grave picture) do you have any ideas which one (or both?) should go? I have clarified the parade caption. I did not upload the Centaur image so I do not know where it came from. Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Jappalang is better able to advise you than I am, on the issue of non-free images. I would agree with you that the mass grave is the best to keep if you are restricted to one, and I'd keep the mercenaries photo above the Karume one – it gives a fairly graphic picture of revolution on the streets. But wait for Jappalang. To find the Centaur image, use the link on the image description page. This takes you to a Back Issues link. Follow that until you find the June 1955 magazine issue, then scroll through until you find the Centaur pic. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added the page number to the description page and will wait for further advice on the images - Dumelow (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

These are relatively minor matters which if attended to will make the article a worthy FA, and I will be pleased to add my support at that stage. Brianboulton (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• oppose the article has three non-free image none of which are allowed under WP:NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Per above discussion, can you help by indicating which of the conditions for use of non-free images are not being met in the case of Image:Zanzibar grave.jpg? I believe the nominator is willing to remove the other two. Brianboulton (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support

• Excellent, even inspired prose. I did not encounter a single copyedit worth mentioning - a rare occurence indeed.

Many thanks, I'll go through your points and try to solve them - Dumelow (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• A comment on the current political status of the country, while arguably outside of the scope of the article, would add further depth.
• RFA Hebe .1972.jpg requires better attribution. I don't contest it's use, but using the appropriate templates is a good idea.

I have added the standard summary template and summarised the creator/uploader's relevant text - Dumelow (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• While I will not claim to be an expert, I have fairly extensive experience with free and non-free images and their appropriate uses over at the Graphics Lab. "Karume and chinese.jpg" meets fair use criteria, similarly "Zanzibar revolution troops.jpg" and "Zanzibar grave.jpg"

• These images are low resolution, irreplaceable and their source is clearly stated. Additional comments on the image pages regarding their contents and significance would be valuable.

That is a good idea. I will try to sort something out later this evening (bit busy at the moment) - Dumelow (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded the purpose and descriptions of the images. Let me know if there is still some improvements to be made, cheers - Dumelow (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• I trust that an attempt has been made to contact Barghash at [5] to ascertain the original source(s) of the images and ensure fair attribution to the relevant authors.

A very good point, I should have tried that before (this article has been on a back burner for a while). I will fire off an email to him now and try to sort that out - Dumelow (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• There is no formal limit on the number of non-free images in an article. My POV: Non-specific, over-zealous wikilawyering does the encyclopedia no favours.
• User:Fasach Nua, the author of the above oppose links to User:Angr#A_parable on his talk page, which opposes the use of any non-free images in a free content encyclopedia. I believe that this clarifies his POV. Further, Fasach Nua has been warned for disruptive editing no fewer than 11 times and 16 posts have been made on his talk page regarding FACs that he opposed on the grounds of using fair-use images without clarification. I believe that this demonstrates his modus operandi.
• Excellent work, Dumelow. I look forward to your Featured Topic. Dhatfield (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah me too! I think History of Zanzibar (which is pretty bare and has only two sources) might be next on my list as there is already a featured List of Sultans of Zanzibar. It might take me a while to get the whole topic covered though! - Dumelow (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Support The article seems overly reliant on two sources, Speller and Parsons. I notice Parsons 107 is used as a citation in 15 instances. Otherwise the article looks good. I would lean towards support. Ceoil (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the article. Yes it is very annoying that they were the only journal articles I could find which dealt with the revolution (and even then somewhat indirectly, Parsons writing mainly about the mutinies and Speller about the British reaction - although both deal quite extensively with the actual revolution as well) but I simply could not find any others. However I do think that the article is comprehensive, being backed up by eight contemporary news reports, and contains almost everything that is known about this rather confusing and ill-documented revolution - Dumelow (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I hear you; lack of available sources can be very fustrating. I'm not disputing the comprehensiveness of the page, just that its is drawn from a relatively narrow range of views. I need to look closer at what claims these two are being used to support, if it is just basic facts, there is no real problem. Do you have access to online / university etc liabries? Maybe ask other editors who have brough articles on modern African history here if they can pass on material (I hope that doesn't sound condesending). I'll see what I can find (will take a few days as I am busy stuffing myself with choclate eggs at the moment). Ceoil (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I have access to the University of Nottingham library but it doesn't carry anything of note. Most of the books on this era are, unfortunately, of the unreliable memoir/autobiography type. I think the refs look unbalanced as most of the speller/parsons one come under the foreign reaction section. In the important sections detailing the actual revolution (background, revolution, aftermaths) they are more varied. By my count those sections include 11 parsons references, 26 speller references and 41 others - whilst still slanted towards speller it is far from based entirely on him. Speller picks up alot more refs in the foreign reaction (particularly British response) section due to his paper focussing on that aspect and for which he is the only writer who focuses on that aspect. If you find any useful references please let me know and I would be more than glad to add them to the article - Dumelow (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The legacy section is very much underdeveloped. It only reiterates what was said earlier. I'm sure there were deep political, economic and societal revibrations not yet hinted at in the article's current state. Also is this section properly named; would aftermat or some such, be more appropriate. I realse that ready availability of sources is an issue; but I doubt that they are not out there to be found. Ceoil (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I have been looking around and found some information on a social housing project in a geography journal which I have added and a little about how the revolution is seen by historians. There is also a source on the impacts on the youth of Zanzibar which seems quite useful which I will try to get around to adding later today or tomorrow. Let me know if this sort of thing is a useful addition to the article. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have now completely rewritten the legacy section and it includes a lot more about the post-revolution history and politics. Hopefully it is better now? - Dumelow (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Section is much improved. I've swithced to support on the basis that the sources you have used meet WP:RS, and are the best available. Ceoil (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3 as follows: Although Faschua Nua opposed without much elaboration, his opinion is not baseless. Fair use images are mainly meant to show something that words cannot effectively convey; they support the text written, to illustrate some concept (art style, atmosphere, metaphysical commentary) that have been discussed, so that readers gain a further understanding of what has been said. A picture that can be expressed with words alone fails this idea. Furthermore, when a non-free image is used, it must be clearly identified as to who the copyright owner of the photo is (the purpose, which I hazard, to be for attribution and contact in case someone wishes to reproduce the image). Ref: WP:NFCC, which fair use images have to comply with all of its 10 criteria.

• File:Zanzibar revolution troops.jpg: why is this picture needed? "Armed civillians" describes the picture perfectly. Simply put, this is just a photo of armed civillians as they stood outside a gate in the middle of nowhere. Can one really recognise the rifles to be of British make? The significance of the image is in question. Who owns the copyright to this photo? Definitely not the website owner this image comes from.
• File:Zanzibar grave.jpg: if the horrific nature of a "mass grave of Arabic bodies" needs to be illustrated, I am not sure this is the image to do it. On first glance, it appears to be a bunch of white dots in a pit. Even after knowing that the picture is supposed to be a mass grave, no emotions are felt. Simply put, this image is so far removed from the actual subject, it retains no "atmosphere" to make it non-replaceable. One cannot identify a body, hence one cannot feel anything about the imagery. The intent is to show the sense of scale of the massacre; however, since the bodies are not identifiable, that is not done. Best to find a screenshot taken from one end of the pit, showing a stretch of recognizable bodies piled up on top of each other. The atmosphere of that imagery could prove to be some significance. The copyright owners of the video are not stated.
• File:Karume and chinese.jpg: why should this picture be needed to "[provide] clear evidence [of] foreign involvement"? Would reliable documentary proof not suffice? Why is "some" used when only 2 of the people shown are of Oriental appearance? A picture cannot provide proof that they are Chinese, Korean, Japanese, or Vietnamese. Words can perfectly convey the entire aspects of this photo ("Abeid Karume sits with his advisors, foreign and local, surveying the scenes."), which does not seem significant. A crop of this image can be used to identify Abeid Karume in his article, but not here. Same as the revolution photo, who is the copyright holder of this photo?

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, they are very useful as my knowledge of what can be fair-use is quite poor. I could not find a screenshot that showed the bodies any clearer than the one that is in there (the only video I have seen is of too poor quality), would it be better to remove it entirely? I will remove the other two images from the article as it is now clear to me that they are not needed. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

After considering this more carefully, I agree with Jappalang (thank you for the comprehensive and rational arguments) regarding File:Zanzibar revolution troops.jpg and File:Karume and chinese.jpg. The mass grave, however is very evocative for me. Maybe it's something about having lived in Africa and having seen the 'politics' first hand. This image was taken from a helicopter, using a video camera. With all due respect, Jappalang, I'm not sure you understand that someone standing next to the pit with a Nikon was the next candidate to be in it. This was not Vietnam, Beirut or Yugoslavia. This was Zanzibar in 1964 and if African revolutions posed for mug shots, they would look like this.

Regarding fair use: the best analogy I have been able to come up for fair use images relates to plagiarism. Not that I equate the two, I don't, but in order to ensure that one is not violating the spirit of the law (the letter is merely a crude approximation to the spirit) it is crucial to find and acknowledge the original authors of the work so that any credit due for the creation of the work accrues to them, rather than oneself or another plagiarist. Credit where credit is due. Dhatfield (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought the camera crew would have a higher power zoom lens available. A low resolution sample of the film showed that there was one scene where they flew around a graveyard, and the copter swooped in low, giving a close-up view of a circle of dead in one corner (under a tree I think). That might be a better representation of the event than the graves. Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the scene at 1:05:15 in this version? I have a screen cap and if you are OK with it I will replace the other image - Dumelow (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

1:05:10 (close up) or 1:05:12 (slightly farther, circular shape more pronounced) would be good; however, the important thing is how convincing the fair use rationale for the image can be written up. You might want to focus on the historical significance (why is this image significant to the Revolution, which part of the imagery cannot be easily described in words) and that such images cannot be freely reproduced. Jappalang (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

OK I used the further away image and uploaded it at File:Zanzibar revolution graves2.JPG, I have replaced the other image (and nommed it for speedy deletion). I have tried to create a robust fair use rationale by following your guidelines. Hopefully the rationale includes all that you wanted (but I am terrible with images so please let me know if it needs more) - Dumelow (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have uploaded a clearer but smaller sized screenshot of the same scene. I think this image has better significance of the event than the previous (to show the organised nature of the killings), but as this is subjective, others might have a different opinion. Jappalang (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou Jappalang, the new image is much better - Dumelow (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Remarks:

• "It is thought that this was an attempt to maintain stability in East Africa, where several army riots had been sparked by the uprising." A bit weasel.

Fixed, see below - Dumelow (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• one link to dis. page (Shirazi) needs fixing.

I have left this in as it contains the East African definition of what a Shirazi is (see first FAC comment) - Dumelow (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• "Electoral fraud was suspected." By whom? Unclear.

By the ASP, fixed - Dumelow (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• "In 1963, with the number of parliamentary seats increased to 31, another round of voting saw a repeat of the 1961 elections. The ASP, led by Abeid Amani Karume, won 54 percent of the vote but only 13 seats,[11] while the ZNP/ZPPP won the rest and set about strengthening its hold on power." How could this happen? Anything wrong with the electoral law? Can't you explain it a bit, because it happened more than once, and I cannot understand how the electoral law worked.

It was apparently due to the way the constituencies were split up, the party which won the most seats got to form the government. It is similar (though not the same) as to how Al Gore lost in the US in 2000. I have clarified that the constituencies were the reason for this in the article - Dumelow (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• "Karume negotiated a merger of Zanzibar with Tanganyika, forming the new nation of Tanzania; it is thought that this was an attempt to maintain stability in East Africa, where several army riots had been sparked by the uprising." Not only weasel, but I don't see that presented and analyzed in the main article. How did this merger took place? If you mention it in the lead, you regard it as significant.

I think that must have been a carry-over from an older version of the article. I have now changed it and it should only contain info that is in the main body - Dumelow (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Per the toolbox, some links lack accessdate.

Doh! Now fixed - Dumelow (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• "A multi-party system was eventually established in 1992, but the country remains dogged by allegations of corruption and vote-rigging." I am confused: if it is now part of Tanzania, can we regard it as a "country". And, besides the Revolutionary Council and House of Representatives, is there also a President, because I see a caption saying "President Amani Abeid Karume".

Good point, I have changed this bit and put in some info about the President (the elder Karume was the first officeholder) - Dumelow (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Besides that, it looks nice.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:50, 18 April 2009 [6].

---

Tunnel Railway

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 15:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Another in the "long forgotten rail electrification projects of south east England" occasional series; those who remember Hellingly Hospital Railway's FAC may feel a sense of deja vu here, as this is very similar in both topic and structure. It's recently come through GAC unscathed, and I think meets the FA criteria as well. Short-ish, but it says all that could reasonably be said about the topic. Copyedited by Malleus – to the extent that he actually has more edits to it than me at present – but any mistakes or omissions are down to me.

I recognize that some of the sections are fairly short – particularly "Operations" – but can't see any obvious way around this. There doesn't seem to be any sensible place to merge the stubby paragraphs to, and any expansion would, I think, just be padding for padding's sake and detract from clarity.

The article does contain two of the dreaded Fair Use Images, but I think they're both justified; File:Ramsgate Tunnel railway air raid shelter.jpg shows the rail tunnels in their wartime role as air-raid shelters, and obviously can't be replicated, while File:Ramsgate Tunnel Railway entrance at Beach Station.jpg shows the design of the trains (unique to this line, so can't be replicated elsewhere), the layout of the station, and the design of the tunnel itself; as the whole setup was closed in 1965 it's unreplicable and in my view adds substantially to the understanding of the article. (Plus, the large "Tunnel Railway" sign settles the issue of what the line called itself – as the lead suggests, it's amazing how many different names it's referred to by in various sources.) It also contains three maps; two I've left at thumbnail size, but one I've forced the image width to 300px to ensure the readability of the captioning and visibility of detail; to me, this is a legitimate use of width forcing per WP:MOSIMAGE, but I don't have strong feelings on the matter so if anyone really objects to it, I won't argue about reducing it back to thumb size. – iridescent 15:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment I should be able to turn Ramsgate Town railway station and Ramsgate Harbour railway station into bluelinks using some of my railway books. Just give me a nudge on my talk page if I haven't done anything by the weekend (I'm liable to forget!). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If not, I can rustle up at least one-line stubs from Mitchell & Smith to turn the redlinks blue. All four of the current redlinks are undoubtedly valid links (in that they're on topics we should have articles on) so they shouldn't be an issue regarding the FAC. – iridescent 01:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- Disambiguation and external links check out fine with the respective checker tools in the toolbox, as does the ref formatting with the WP:REFTOOLS script.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support - wow, I sure learnt a lot of new stuff from this article for someone who grew up in Thanet and attnded school in Ramsgate for seven years! :-P Anyway, some pointers:
  • First para of lead is only one sentence, suggest the paras be re-jigged somehow
    • I've expanded the first paragraph a bit with a very brief "why it was built and why at this time?". I don't want to go into too much detail but I think this is an acceptable compromise. – iridescent 19:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Sub-sections of "Background" are really short, are the sub-headings really required?
    • I flip-flopped on this one; the version without the subheads is also problematic, as it makes for some rather stodgy chunks of text. I've no strong opinion either way; if anyone feels the "no subheads" version is better I've no problem at all with removing them. – iridescent 19:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Paras in general are very short, with some of only two sentences or even just one. Suggest some shorter ones be merged together
    • Removing the subheads would solve this for the first section; for the latter sections, the problem paragraphs ("Initially, the tunnel was decorated with illuminated scenes depicting Switzerland, Canada, The Netherlands, Japan and Egypt." and so on) are placed where they are because there's no obvious way to expand them, but they'd be out of place merged with their neighbours. If you can think of a way to merge them without creating jarring discontinuities, do feel free! – iridescent 19:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)#
      • I've merged various paragraphs together to eliminate those that were only one or town sentences long. I think it still reads absolutely fine, what do you reckon.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Looks good to me – it seems to solve the "choppiness" issue without detracting from any meaning. Thanks! – iridescent 15:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • In different places you refer to "World War I" but "the Second World War" - be consistent
    • Blame Malleus for that one! Changed back to World War II, following the "use the title of the Wikipedia article on the subject unless there's a good reason not to" unofficial rule. – iridescent 19:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
      • We Brits tend to call it the Second World War, and as it's a British subject I thought that would be appropriate. The important thing is obviously consistency though, so I forgive you. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Last sentence under "opening" is unsourced
    • Oops, that one just slipped through – fixed. – iridescent 19:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• Looks good other than that! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

query - The non free image File:Ramsgate_Tunnel_Railway_entrance_at_Beach_Station.jpg is to show the trains which are still in existance, why can an image not be obtained of these existing trains? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The trains don't really "still exist" in anything more than the broadest sense of the phrase. There were sold to two preservation societies, stripped of all their engines, driver positions etc, and rebuilt for use as carriages (see here; there's footage of them in use here) – whereas on the Tunnel Railway they were red and yellow self-contained trains, the "surviving" stock at Hollycombe is now a set of bright blue railway passenger carriages that happen to have been built on the bases of the Tunnel Railway cars; a picture of them as they are now would be a great illustration for Narrow gauge railway but would be misleading and fairly useless in an article about how they appeared at this time. Additionally, File:Ramsgate_Tunnel_Railway_entrance_at_Beach_Station.jpg shows the design of the tunnel (now bricked up) and its relative width in comparison to the trains themselves (the width is important, as it's the width which gave space for the unique "around the world" displays); shows the design of the station (now demolished) with its unusual "separate platform on both side of the train" layout and extreme proximity to the tunnel mouth, both of which are hard to articulate in words (although I do try); shows the very unusual in British usage overhead single-cable trolley pole power system (now demolished) which was an almost unique feature of this line; and, while it's certainly not essential, shows the signage of the railway which definitively shows that it was called "Tunnel Railway", which is not as obvious as one may think (each source seems to refer to it by a different name). Even if one did grant that a photo of the trains could be replicated (which I don't accept), it still illustrates multiple other points covered by the article in a way which can't be reproduced as free use. – iridescent 19:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment File:Ramsgate rail lines.png should probably be redone just because of how it looks... but it also has no source to meet WP:V. In fact, a few of the images need verifiable claims made from reliable sources. gren グレン 21:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • What's the problem with it? If it really needs citing, it can be cited ad nauseam from any rail atlas; it just shows the Thanet section of File:Kent Railways.svg in more detail. Regarding "how it looks", not sure what the issue is here; it's identical in style to the images from Hellingly Hospital Railway. This is a rail network diagram; it's intended to be informative, not pretty. Regarding the other images, I can't see any issues or disputes over what they depict; what issues do you mean? – iridescent 21:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • NB – have added sourcing for this image. – iridescent 22:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Note re another image If anyone knows a way to rescue File:Ramsgate001.jpg, it would be much appreciated; this shows the tunnel as it was in the mid 1980s, but is scanned from a 25-year-old transparency and shows it. – iridescent 21:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You could ask at WP:GL..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, you learn something every day. I've asked at Durova's talk, which (cynically) is probably read by all the graphics-types anyway but if that doesn't get a response I'll try there. There's absolutely no rush, as it still needs to be confirmed what exactly this is a photo of. – iridescent 20:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Extreme thanks to Durova for fixing this image up! – iridescent 14:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support and comments (you don't have to take my advice) - the image in "Route" with the caption "Trains at the lower station" would probably look better in the info box. I feel that the "opening" section under "reopening" might be a little redundant as its own section. Anyway you can split up the sections differently, especially with an eye not to have small sections left alone? It almost seems as if the content could be set under two sections - the main section and a subsection - perhaps combine "route" with the section above and "opening" with "construction" and call it "New line" or whatever. The 1926 image in "Wartime" might be a little iffy as fair-use. I will let better image experts weigh in on that. I would combine the "After the closure" with the "Post-war operations" section. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The "Trains at the lower station" is a fair use image; I dislike using FU images in infoboxes or other very prominent positions, as to my mind it makes it more likely people will use them inappropriately. (AFAIK there's no policy about it, it's just a personal preference). Also, it's quite tall and thin so would make the infobox very long, and consequently push the maps out of position on wide monitors – and the maps really ought to display next to the paragraphs they're attached to, as they illustrate the particular changes to the layout in 1926. Regarding the air-raid shelter image, it's not essential, so I can remove it if there's consensus that there's a problem; it's almost certainly Crown Copyright, and hence now public domain under the 50-year rule (I can't imagine the authorities allowed people to take photos of military installations during wartime), but as it's uncredited anywhere I can't prove that.
    I've fiddled with the sections slightly to get rid of the short "Operations" section, and renamed "Reopening" – I never really liked that as a title but couldn't think of an alternative. "After the closure" is a deliberate attempt to have at least a slight "legacy" section, by separating out the closure process itself from the subsequent demolition. It's short partly because there are some very thorny legal issues regarding exactly what took place at the Pleasurama buildings in the years following the line's closure (they can't be repeated here per BLP, but google "Jimmy Godden", the owner of Pleasurama and its successors, for an idea of the issues involved) – it seemed best to stick to the most basic and neutral "it was demolished". – iridescent 19:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Further to the above – you've convinced me, and I've deleted the "Air raid shelter" image. – iridescent 19:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comments I have made a couple of edits to the article to tighten the prose in a couple of places. I have a few observations and questions:
  • Background
    • The article states that the population had more than doubled to over 20,000 by the 1920s but there isn't a previous population figure or year given to indicate from what date this change is measured. According to the censuses, the population of Ramsgate was already 27,733 by 1901 and was 36,561 in 1921.
      • Fixed. I'd like to keep the "doubled" (or similar) in there to make it clear how fast the population was growing in this period. The "20,000" figure is from Mitchell & Smith, who are generally meticulously accurate. I agree that it doesn't tally with census data – possibly they only counted adults, or were using a narrower geographical area. I've removed the figure altogether, as I don't think there's any doubt that the population roughly doubled between 1863-1926, and it's the rate of expansion that's significant rather than the figures. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Could mention what happened to the top bit of the original tunnel not used by the narrow gauge line. Subterranea site seems to indicate it was just closed off.
      • As far as I know, it's still there (and the entrance still visible) albeit sealed off. Reliable sources seem hard to find after the end of its wartime use as an air-raid shelter. As I can't find a source for it (I've no doubt Subterranea Britannica is correct, but they're by no stretch a reliable source by Wikipedia standards) I've left it out – it doesn't really matter for this article, which is explicitly about the section of the tunnel that did remain in use. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Construction
    • Suggest renaming the section to Construction and Infrastructure as half of it deals with the trains.
      • ✓ Done – completely agree. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Although it isn't stated, presumably each of the two halves of the yellow train had a driver's cab whereas the red train originally had just the one. Does that mean that the red train had to reverse through the tunnel or could the car with the driver's cab be detached and run around to the other end?
      • Each of the two halves of the yellow train had two drivers cabs – one at each end – and when it was run as a single train the halves were coupled together drivers-cab to drivers-cab. I was trying to avoid veering off into detail about the workings here, but can certainly add a paragraph if you think it's necessary. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
        • So presumably, the red train had cabs at both ends as well, avoiding the need to reverse. --DavidCane (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Yes – have now fixed this in the article, both to clarify that there was a cab at each end, and that the yellow train had spare drivers cabs in the middle to allow it to split. – iridescent 23:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Presumably, as the tunnel is cut through the chalk underlying the town it is not lined with tunnel rings and was excavated using traditional mining techniques rather than needing a tunnelling shield - aiding the speed of construction.
      • I honestly don't know. The only photograph of the tunnel under construction of which I'm aware (in Mitchell & Smith) just shows a large steam-shovel rather than a "true" tunnel boring machine, but in the absence of facts I don't want to speculate – the steam-shovel may have just been used for particular tasks. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • You say the new tunnel was far smaller than the original tunnel - what were the dimensions of the original tunnel?
      • I don't know, is the honest answer. It accommodated standard gauge double track, so at least 26ft × 13ft, but nothing seems to give the full dimensions. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • As the tunnel only took 12 weeks to construct, it seems unlikely that the decision to use electric trains was only taken after construction began as it is unlikely that the equipment and trains could have been designed and built in such a short period.
      • I've moved a paragraph and changed "construction" to "planning"; the decision to electrify it using overhead cables was taken in 1934-35, while construction was from May-August 1936. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Is there any information on the cost of construction?
      • Not that I can find, and Harding (who's fairly exhaustive) doesn't mention any specific figures for costs
  • Opening
    • "Throughout the 1937, 1938, and 1938 seasons" should, presumably be "Throughout the 1937, 1938, and 1939 seasons".
      • Oops! – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Wartime
    • Is "vast" a reasonable description of the size of the air-raid shelter system, even if it could hold 60,000 people. Perhaps extensive might be more appropriate.
      • I can change to "extensive" or "large" if you think "vast" causes problems; I was trying to emphasise just how big this was in proportion to all other air-raid shelter schemes (with the exception of Barcelona) – this was large enough to hold twice the entire civilian population of the town. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Did the shelter provide over-night accommodation or just during an attack, i.e. did it provide bed spaces or just places to sit?
      • I can't find a definitive answer; photographs of the shelters in use just show people standing about, rather than London-style "home from home" shelters. Veering into original research, I doubt the ventilation system (10 airshafts for almost 4 miles of tunnels) could have coped with large numbers in the tunnel for long periods, but I can't find anything definitive either way. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • For information, according to the 1939 National Registration of England and the Isle of Man, the population of Ramsgate Metropolitan Borough on 26 September 1939 was 32,929 - slightly less than 34,000.
      • The 34,000 figure comes from The Railway Gazette, which I'd consider reliable on railway matters but not necessarily on population. I've changed it to a vaguer "approximately 33,000" – the population of a heavily militarised city smack in the middle of the projected invasion route during wartime is impossible to state accurately. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Post-war operations
    • What reason does Harding give for the decision to close the railway? It does not seem to have been related directly to the accident as the owners went to the trouble of rebuilding the station and continuing services for the remainder of the 1965 holiday season. Was it economic?
      • Harding's explanation of the decision – in full – is: "The station was soon repaired and trains continued to operate for the rest of the 1965 season although the railway had for some time begun to have a "run down" appearance. The accident must have had an effect on the minds of the owners […] and a decision was taken to close the line as the 1965 season finished." and no other source even speculates on the reason for the closure. It's easy enough to speculate (the impact of cheap automobiles in the 1960s, the decline in British resorts following the lifting of currency controls, stricter health & safety legislation, the decline of Ramsgate port as a passenger terminal etc) but there don't seem to be any hard facts about the decision. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
        • The impact of cheaper foreign holidays would be my bet as well.--DavidCane (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • General comments
    • Is there any information on the profitability of the railway throughout its lifetime?
      • Again, not that I can find; none of the sources mention costs or profits at all. As it served as a loss-leader in getting customers to the amusement park and greyhound stadium, I suspect it would be impossible to quantify costs and benefits. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Is there any more information on passenger numbers throughout its lifetime? Only the 20,000 passengers carried over the opening bank holiday weekend are mentioned (for 108 people per train fully loaded that's about 60 journeys a day for three days).
      • The opening weekend is the only one for which numbers seem to exist. Anecdotally, passenger numbers seem to be quite low (there are no photos that ever show the trains more than half-full) but no hard figures. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Any idea how long the journey took over the 1.32 km and what speed did the trains achieve?
      • Five minutes end-to-end, over a total distance of 1320m (including the stations), making a average speed of 15.8 kilometres per hour (9.8 mph); I don't know the top speed but assume it would be about 10mph. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Quite leisurely, then - giving enough time to enjoy the World tableaux.--DavidCane (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Might be useful to link to this regarding the air raid tunnels. It contains some photos of the railway tunnel in war time mode.
      • I linked to the Subterranea Britannica page, which includes some photos of them in use both as a rail line and as a shelter. Blogspot links tend to get removed fairly quickly – I'm also reluctant to use the Thanet Underground one as it includes some dubious figures which don't tally with any other source. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
        • OK.--DavidCane (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • --DavidCane (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. EDIT: Struck oppose. Steve ^{T • C} The article seems pretty comprehensive and well-researched, but I do think the prose could do with another pass. I don't think it's too far off, so don't worry overmuch about that oppose (see the link for why), but it's not quite there yet. Some of the issues detailed below fall into the subjective "but what makes good prose?" category, so feel free to exercise editorial judgement in incorporating these (i.e. it won't prevent my hopefully-eventual support if you choose not to), but others are grammar slips or ambiguities that it would do good to address. Steve ^{T • C}

  Lead

  • Is the disambiguation link to Ramsgate railway station necessary? Removing it would help declutter the top, and the link is already included in the body. Would anyone searching for the current Ramsgate railway station put "Tunnel Railway" into the search box?
    • No-one searching for Ramsgate railway station would search on "Tunnel Railway", but they could reasonably be typing "Ramsgate" into the search bar and follow the link from Ramsgate Cliff Railway, etc, which redirect here. The disambiguation header has to be there anyway as it's necessary to disambiguate "Tunnel railway"/"Railway tunnel", which is a very likely error for many non-English speakers (the word for "underground train" in most Germanic languages is some variant of "Tunnelbahn", e.g the Tunnelbana in Stockholm). I've no strong objection to removing the Ramsgate station disambiguation, but I think it does no harm and might be useful. – iridescent 19:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Good point; I neglected to consider that someone might come here from the redirect. Steve ^{T • C} 20:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I can't see a definite rule for this, but should those aka's be in boldface?
    • Yes they should; the rule is stated here: "If the subject of the page has a common abbreviation or more than one name, the abbreviation (in parentheses) and each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance." --Malleus Fatuorum 12:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I've been, er, bold and introduced that for the akas. It's not particularly sightly, but that's what they get for constantly changing the name. Steve ^{T • C} 12:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "it was decided to close services at the end of September that year." Is it possible to make this a little less passive by saying who decided?
    • I've changed to "the owners decided". As the company owning the railway changed its name just before the closure, I don't want the ungainly "Pleasurama Ltd (formerly Ramsgate Olympia Ltd) decided to close…" in the lead if it can be avoided. – iridescent 19:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Strike. Steve ^{T • C} 20:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm told that "unviable" is a common misspelling of "inviable". I don't see it, but that's what Wiktionary says.
    • The Oxford English Dictionary, probably a more reliable source than Wiktionary, includes both inviable and unviable. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Excellent, thanks. It never even occurred to me to check the copy that, as I type, is sitting right in front of me. Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 12:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  Background

  • "The coastal resort and port town of Ramsgate was historically served by a complex network of unconnected railway lines, the legacy of competition between two rival firms to provide links to London, and to neighbouring Margate." I read this three times before realising the two commas didn't indicate an interruption. Removal of the second comma and the second "to" would resolve the ambiguity.
    • Struck the comma; left the second "to" as removing it seems to suggest that Margate neighbours London, rather than Ramsgate. – iridescent 19:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Much better. Steve ^{T • C} 20:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "Lines from the station ran north, before splitting westwards to Canterbury and on to London, and north to Margate." Parallel structure might work better here (westwards/northwards or west/north). The last statement also feels tacked-on. I don't think it would lose anything by removing "on to", but it would make the sentence read more cleanly.
    • Agree on the "westwards" which I've fixed. Regarding "on to" I disagree; "to Canterbury and on to London" makes it clear that it's a single line, while "to Canterbury and to London" implies two separate lines. (Compare the sentences "Aeroflot flies from Moscow to London and Los Angeles" with "Aeroflot flies from Moscow to London and on to Los Angeles".) – iridescent 19:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 20:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "This line ran from London via Herne Bay..." I'm not sure "via" works here with the absence of a "to" subject (e.g. "London to Ramsgate, via...") though an argument could be made that Ramsgate is implicit.
    • "This line ran from London via Herne Bay, Margate and Broadstairs before descending to sea level at Ramsgate through a tunnel" seems clear to me; I'm not sure how I could reword it without some very awkward phrasing ("From London via Herne Bay etc to Ramsgate; on the final approach to Ramsgate it descended through a tunnel" is very clunky). – iridescent 19:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Satisfied with that rebuttal. Steve ^{T • C} 20:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "trains losing control..." Being nitpicky, that should read, "trains' losing control" (you wouldn't say "me losing control", but "my losing control").
    • Rewritten to avoid the awkward noun +ing. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Strike. Steve ^{T • C} 13:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "and running through the station and onto the beach..." That might read better if you lost the second "and".
    • Done. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Strike. Steve ^{T • C} 13:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The last sentence works equally well without the "additionally".
    • Done. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Strike. Steve ^{T • C} 13:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  1926 restructuring

  • "It was decided to link the two lines at Ramsgate to allow through running between the two lines." Who decided? This would be improved in the active voice. Also, the repetition of "two lines" is clumsy; consider recasting the sentence to eliminate one instance.
    • Done, although it means a repetition of "Southern Railway". – iridescent 20:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Gone. Steve ^{T • C} 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Per the manual of style, disambiguate "ton", perhaps with a link to the relevant article (long ton, short ton, metric tonne).
    • I personally don't think it's necessary. "200,000 tons" is obviously (I hope!) just an approximation, and the difference between metric and imperial tons isn't significant. The short ton is a measurement never used in Britain, and IMO wouldn't be any more appropriate in an article in British English on a British subject than the Hobbit or Talent, regardless of what the MOS says. – iridescent 20:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not going to be nitpicky about this given the approximation, I only spotted it in the MOS and thought I'd mention it. Steve ^{T • C} 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "(approximately £20.4 million today)" Should at least say "as of [date]" to give it some precision, so the reader isn't wondering if it's been updated recently. Adding CURRENTISOYEAR will do the trick:(approximately £{{Formatprice|{{Inflation|UK|500000|1925|r=-3}}|0}} as of {{CURRENTISOYEAR}})
    • Done. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Gone. Steve ^{T • C} 13:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "whilst" No better than "while" in this context, which is less alienating.
    • Changed "whilst" to "and". --Malleus Fatuorum 13:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 13:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "Thanet Amusements Ltd who" → "Thanet Amusements Ltd, which"?
    • I think "who" is OK here? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • It sounded odd to me. Referring to a company, I'd always try to say "a company, which" rather than "a company, who", but this is one of those personal preference suggestions, so I'm fine with it as is. I'll perhaps stick a comma in before "who". Steve ^{T • C} 13:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "However, the new stations were some distance from the attractions along the seafront which was now a long distance from the stations at the foot of a steep hill." Makes it sound as if the seafront moved, rather than the stations. It also essentially says the same thing twice concerning the distance. Suggestion: "The new stations were now a long way from the seafront attractions, which were..." or similar.
    • Rewritten that last paragraph along the lines you suggest. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Strike. Steve ^{T • C} 13:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  Tunnel Railway

  • "By 1933 Merrie England, now under the ownership of Ramsgate Olympia Ltd, had become extremely popular, and Ramsgate Olympia Ltd began to lobby the Southern Railway to reopen the line through the tunnel with a new junction station between Dumpton Park and Broadstairs; however, the Southern Railway rejected the proposal as too costly and impractical." Overlong sentence that would benefit for redundancy and repetition trims, and perhaps a split. Example: "By 1933 Merrie England, now owned by Ramsgate Olympia Ltd, had become extremely popular; the company lobbied the Southern Railway to reopen the tunnel line with a new junction station between Dumpton Park and Broadstairs. Southern Railway rejected the proposal as too costly and impractical." This suggestion could definitely be improved upon, but you get the idea.
    • Broken the sentence with the minimal change of replacing a semicolon with a period, which hopefully does the trick. – iridescent 20:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • It does! Steve ^{T • C} 20:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "Keen to make the attractions near the harbour accessible from the railway main line, and to provide a service from the seafront to the greyhound stadium at Dumpton Park, Ramsgate Olympia and the Southern Railway eventually agreed on a scheme by which a new line would use the 780 yards (710 m) of the tunnel nearest the beach, before branching off into a new 364-yard (333 m) tunnel to emerge at a new station at Hereson Road, a 250-yard (230 m) walk from Dumpton Park station." Very long sentence that could do with a split or two. Reordering to place the subjects "Ramsgate Olympia and the Southern Railway" closer to the start would help too.
    • Done. – iridescent 20:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 20:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "The company planned the construction of a large-scale housing estate..." Which company? Ramsgate Olympia? It could be ambiguous by this point.
    • Done. – iridescent 20:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Gone. Steve ^{T • C} 20:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  Route

  • "passengers waiting" → "passengers' waiting".
    • I don't think I agree with this. "Waiting" is being used as a participle, not as a gerund, therefore it's an adjective qualifying "passengers" and so the apostrophe signifying possession is inappropriate. Even if it had been a gerund though I still think that this possessive form would be extremely unusual. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • You're quite right, I misread it; the platform is for the passengers, not their waiting (passengers [who are] waiting to board the train). Steve ^{T • C} 16:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "the lower station was never named." That it was never named is directly contradicted in the sentence following ("Olympia", "Beach", "Sands" and "Lower Terminus") even if those were unofficial designations. Perhaps "never officially named"?
    • Done. – iridescent 20:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Strike. Steve ^{T • C} 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  Construction & infrastructure

  • "it was decided early in the line's planning to electrify the line." Passive voice that would benefit from switching to active if we know who decided.
    • Done, although it means more repetition of "Ramsgate Olympia". – iridescent 20:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Strike. Steve ^{T • C} 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "A third rail system was rejected due to concerns for the safety of the large numbers of children expected to use the line." Rejected by the company? Again, using the active voice where possible would help to clarify points like this.
    • Slightly ambiguous. Obviously, rejected by Ramsgate Olympia in the sense that they signed off on the final design, but I'd suspect the decision was taken by the engineers (and that "Mr D F Warren, Managing Director", who is credited in the original article with taking the decision, had little to do with it). – iridescent 20:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. Steve ^{T • C} 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "As the journey would take place entirely in tunnel" → "in the tunnel" or "in-tunnel"?
    • Replaced "in tunnel" with "underground". --Malleus Fatuorum 13:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Gone. Steve ^{T • C} 16:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "This led to the line becoming semi-officially known as..." → "line's becoming". Also, known by whom? The public?
    • I personally prefer "line becoming" to "line's becoming", but don't have a strong opinion on it. The "semi-officially" is vague because it's very nebulous; "World Scenic Railway" was certainly what some newspapers were calling it – and what at one point was painted over the entrance to one of the stations – and it's equally certain that it was never the official name of the line. Not sure how it could be reworded. – iridescent 20:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Don't worry about it; I don't think anyone's ever going to complain about the passive voice when we don't know. "Line's becoming"—the possessive is correct. But while I've been told that "if it sounds clumsy when done correctly then the whole thing needs rephrasing", I'm not going to nitpick and insist on a change to a perfectly readable passage. Steve ^{T • C} 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  Opening

  • "Mr E. C. Cox..." Why the "Mr"?
    • When you're using 1930s sources, you pick up habits of 1930s writing, is the honest answer. Seriously, I don't know what our policy is for names when we don't know the first name (no source uses anything other than the initial); if nothing else, the "Mr" tells us that he was male, and wasn't a knight or lord – which is three more pieces of information than the initials alone would give. – iridescent 20:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Fair. Steve ^{T • C} 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
        • His full name was Lieutenant-Colonel Edwin Charles Cox, CVO, CBE, TD, OStJ (1868-1958) --DavidCane (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
          • ✓ Done Replaced. 92.13.155.246 (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

  Wartime

  • "The network was capable of sheltering 60,000 people, compared to Ramsgate's civilian population at the time of approximately 33,000." Not strictly a comparison. "...sheltering 60,000 people; Ramsgate's civilian population at the time was..." seems more appropriate.
    • Changed it to "although". – iridescent 20:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't think we even need that "although"—it feels like unnecessary editorialising—but it's on such a minor scale, I'm not going to nitpick. Steve ^{T • C} 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• In addition to these specific points, I strongly recommend another sweep to trim redundant words and phrases, which should make the article read more cleanly and reduce the likelihood of errors' creeping in. It could definitely use it for passages containing things like "under the name of" ("called"), "going instead to nearby Margate" ("going to Margate"—Margate has already been introduced at this point), some instances of "simply" and "also", "in the crash", etc. Other than these issues, I can't see anything in particular that would prevent my future support !vote. I'll watchlist this page, so no need to ping me once you've tackled/rebutted. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 09:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I've struck my oppose based on the speedy resolution of the above issues, and the ongoing tweaking of the prose for redundancies and the like. Sorry if some if these seemed too pedantic. I'll nip back shortly to give it another read and consider a support. Steve ^{T • C} 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • No, pedantic is good. As with most engineering articles (the SR Leader Class FAC currently a few above this is another good example), because most people working on them are both used to thinking in jargon, and probably have more specialised knowledge than most, it's quite hard to pitch them towards Giano's hypothetical "bright 14 year old with no prior knowledge of the subject" without veering either to patronising or incomprehensible. – iridescent 22:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. All issues resolved or successfully dismissed as the irrelevancies they are. Nice work, Steve ^{T • C} 22:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. This sort of local history article is what helps enrich the encyclopaedia. You need to add a link to the article from the transportation section of the Ramsgate article and probably from London, Chatham and Dover Railway and Port Ramsgate. --DavidCane (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done for the first two. Port Ramsgate is such a mess of an article that it needs wiping out and starting again; since it doesn't mention any transport infrastructure at present, I'd need to research and write an entire "road and rail links" section to include it. – iridescent 23:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Query - this is a random thought, but is there a "before" picture anywhere that can show what File:Ramsgate1.png looked like when the line was in operation? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 15:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The now-deleted "air raid shelter" photograph showed the tunnel width (albeit in use as an air raid shelter) but it was fair use and I've deleted it per my conversation with Ottava above. I'm not aware of any free-use pictures of the new tunnel – there are a few photos of the original Ramsgate Harbour station in operation, but none of the tunnels themselves or of any part of the system during its life as the Tunnel Railway (it operated in that hard-to-source period, recently enough that all photos will still be in copyright, but before photography became commonplace). There will possibly be some Crown Copyright (and hence usable on Wikipedia) wartime pictures about, but they'll be hard to find, not helped by the fact that the Ramsgate Archives building was destroyed in a fire a few years ago and the content now dispersed. Iridescent 2 (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I think this article satisfies all the FA criteria. Unfortunately, it looks a little untidy, especially all those dabs at the top, but I can't see anyway around this. Nonetheless, it is a well-researched and well-written contribution, and I am happy to add my support. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • See my comment somewhere in the morass above regarding the dab at the top; I know it's untidy, but I can't see a way to avoid it – disambiguating "Railway tunnel" and "Tunnel railway" (which as well as the "Tunnelbana" issue I mentioned above, is also cognate to "Tube train" so very likely to be returned by machine-translators) is, I think, necessary. – iridescent 16:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I have read through this article, and cannot find any major faults. As GrahamColm states, the Dabs do look untidy, but are unavoidable as they are needed to prevent confusion over the subject matter of the article. A couple of minor quibbles, more out of personal preference than any hard and fast rules, rest with the fact that I believe a couple of images could be moved to the left for presentational purposes, leading the eye to skim over to that side of the page and read something, rather than just be immediately drawn to the right. Secondly, would it completely alter the article if it was moved to Ramsgate Tunnel Railway? It links the title to a place, and still highlights the fact that it was entirely enclosed by a tunnel. However once again, this is personal preference, and has no real bearing on my general support for this well-written and researched article. Well done to the lead editors for what has already been achieved! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Early versions did have a left/right alternation of images. I've moved them all to the right, as they were pushing headers out of place which I thought was quite distracting for the reader.
    Regarding the renaming, I did consider titling it "Ramsgate Tunnel Railway" just to make it clearer from the title as to exactly what the article's about. The problem is, that while it's certainly been referred to quite often as "Ramsgate Tunnel Railway" or "Ramsgate Cliff Railway", the only names I can find evidence of ever being used officially (in station signage, advertising etc) are "World Scenic Railway" and "Tunnel Railway". I'm not sure what our policy is in these circumstances (or if we even have one) given that for most articles it's fairly obvious what the name is, but I thought using one of the two at least vaguely official names would be the best compromise. – iridescent 16:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:50, 18 April 2009 [7].

---

Magic Johnson

Nominator(s): Noble Story (talk • contributions)

Third time around for this article. Just a couple of things to consider before reviewing.

1. I've gone through the prose (again). If you find more mistakes, you'll have to excuse me while I bash my head against a wall.
2. A concern last FAC seemed to be that the article relied too much on his autobiography for sourcing. Well, I've now pared down those references from his book, so the only references used from his autobiography are describing his feeling or using quotes (which I think is the correct way to use that kind of source). Noble Story (talk • contributions) 07:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

image comment - Can you verify that the picture of the statue is not a derived work of a 3D copyrighted artwork per Template:Non-free 3D art Fasach Nua (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, I'm just wondering how I'm supposed to go about doing that?

This forum is to review if an article is of FA standard or not, if the validitity of components of an article are unverifiable then i would oppose promotion Fasach Nua (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to find out the copyright information for the statue. It was probably created recently enough to be under copyright still; therefore a photo of it is a derivative work of a copyrighted work, and therefore copyrighted as well. --Laser brain (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like that photo is either going to have to converted to fair use or removed from the article. Kaldari (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(to Fasach Nua) Please don't oppose until I have a chance to address what you say. For now, I've removed the image until I place fair-use rationale, and/or find another suitable image. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

All images appropriately licenced, oppose sticken Fasach Nua (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments - I've reviewed this at both previous FACs and read through most of it a few weeks ago. Therefore, I'm starting my review from where I left off, and the first comment comes from the year he came back to the NBA from retirement.

• Another sentence starting with "But". Not the first time I've seen that in this article.
• Off the court: "a company that has a net worth of 700 million." I don't understand why the number isn't just given as a dollar figure.
• Our NBA Countdown article says that the show also airs on ABC.
• HIV activism: I was confused by this: "publicized a risk of infection for everyone." I get what it's trying to say, but the wording can definitely be improved.
• Career achievements: "Several of his achievements in individual games also been named one of the top moments in the NBA." one>among.
• Rivalry with Larry Bird: "Ever since the Johnson's Michigan State squad...". Grammar error.
• Don't think "Hall-of-Famers" needs the hyphens.
• Current references 11 and 95 need en dashes for the page ranges.

That's all I found in that part of the article, but please note that I didn't read through all of it. That will come at a later time. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through your points, but a few things:

• I think the NBA countdown article says it's on ABC because ESPN is a subsidary on ABC. I'm pretty sure it's shown on ESPN.
• "publicizing the risk of infection for everyone". I'm stuck on that, I can't think of a way to reword it.
• I've removed all the rest of the "but"s at the beginning of a sentence in the article. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 07:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Don't think there's anything wrong with using "but" at the beginning of sentences, but never mind... traditional grammar teachers will object. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Tech. Review

• Dabs and external links (based on the checker tools in the toolbox) are up to speed, as is the ref formatting (based on the WP:REFTOOLS script.)--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Much improved. Too important an article to bypass. It's not bad but there is some tightening and clarifying for readers not familiar with basketball. Many of my concerns are picky, but I want this article to the best that WP has to offer on basketball, especially considering the subject. Find someone not familiar with the subject and the article to copy-edit.

• "In Johnson's fifth year, he had another strong season of 17.6 points, 13.1 assists and 7.3 rebounds per game." Two things, both of which could attributed to personal preference:
  • "had" is such a weak verb, could you find something better?
  • "strong season" is subjective, how does one define that. Keep in mind that a strong season for Brian Scalabrine could be a down season for Kobe Bryant.
    • to be read in the context of the whole article. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• "where Johnson's Lakers"-->in which Johnson's Lakers
• I think it would be better to rename the header from "Battles with the Celtics (1983–87)" to "Battles against the Celtics (1983–87)", "with" could be interpreted to mean that he fought these battles on the same side as the Celtics
• "Johnson later termed the series as "the one championship we should have had but didn't get"."-->Johnson later described the series as "the one championship we should have had but didn't get".
• "In the 1984–85 NBA season, Johnson returned to form and averaged 18.3 points, 12.6 assists and 6.2 rebounds per game in the regular season." Just a paragraph earlier, you said that Johnson had a "strong season", but now you are saying he "returned to form", which implies a drop-off.
• "After advancing to the Western Conference Finals, however, the Lakers were unable to defeat Houston, who advanced to the Finals in five games." "however" used here is confusing, because Johnson's double-double in the regular season doesn't necessarily translate to playoff success.
• "For his feats, Johnson was awarded his third Finals MVP title" Is "For his feats" necessary? The comma after this phrase isn't necessary.
• "although a team had not successfully repeated their title since 1969." Confusing, maybe "although a team had not won consecutive titles since 1969."
• "36 points, 16 rebounds and 10 assists, and he led his team to a 108–105 win" Ellipsis. -Done
• "where they again faced the Pistons"-->in which they again faced the Pistons
• "In his retirement, Johnson engaged himself in writing a book on safer sex, running several businesses, working for NBC as a commentator, and touring Asia and Australia with a basketball team comprising former college and NBA players."-->During his retirement, Johnson wrote a book on safer sex, ran (operated?) several businesses, worked for NBC as a commentator, and toured Asia and Australia with a basketball team that comprised former college and NBA players.
• You use "year" and "season" interchangeably, and not always correctly. For example, "In Johnson's fifth year, he had another strong season of 17.6 points, 13.1 assists and 7.3 rebounds per game." A season usually encompasses parts of two years.
• "Johnson first fathered a son in 1981, when Andre Johnson was born to Melissa Mitchell.[75] In 1991, Johnson married Earlitha "Cookie" Kelly, with whom he had one son, Earvin III" So what happened to Johnson's relationship with Mitchell?
• "Johnson and Bird were first linked as rivals " "linked" is vague. Is it some destiny thing or a media-driven rivalry?
• Per WP:LAYOUT, I think the section "Books" should be "Works". -Done
• Is the external link to his foundation necessary?
• The Basketball-reference sources are formatted inconsistently. -Done Dabomb87 (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Dabomb87. I understand that you are busy, and that it is the nominator's responsibility to make sure the article is written brilliantly, but I think it would be extremely helpful if you can help copyedit the article. You are an amazing copyeditor and any help from you will be greatly appreciated.—Chris! _ct 23:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Blatant and overdone flattery notwithstanding, I'll see what I can do :) Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am just saying what I think is true. I don't mean to be flattery.—Chris! _ct 23:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

In any case, thanks for the kind words. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyway. I got the rest of your comments, although I left the foundation link in, since I think it's a big part of what he does now. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I will continue to work on the article, I struck my oppose for now. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I did some cleanup work to help this one along. One issue I'll leave to the nominator was this glaring redundancy: "However, despite Abdul-Jabber's dominance, he had failed to win a championship with the Lakers, and Johnson was expected to help the Lakers win a championship. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. I've removed it. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 06:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

How is copy-editing progessing? When it's done, please ping me so I can take another look at the article. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've already gone through the article several times, and I personally think that it's fine. But then, I thought that the last two times as well. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 10:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I can commit to the promised copy-editing. I said I would try to do some, but there are a lot of things I need to attend to this week. I will try my best, but don't expect too much. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

One more thing I saw during another sweep of the article: "Although it was rumored that Johnson was gay or bisexual, he denied both charges." I'm a little uncomfortable with this because the text makes it sound like homosexuality is some kind of crime. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I've changed it. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 03:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(indent) Lean support - Since there has been no almost no activity here for about two weeks, I'm going to follow my instincts and take a stand. The article looks better than it did the other two times it was here, and the main complaints from past FACs seem to have been addressed. After the sweep I mentioned above, I'm quite satisfied with the quality of the page overall. I'm going to leave several more comments here before striking the lean above (I swear this is it from me):

• The many Basketball-Reference links shouldn't be in italics, which are forced by the work parameter in the cite templates. Perhaps consider putting them both in the publisher parameter.

Based on my experience writing FLs, I've been told to have Basketball-Reference in the work parameter and Sports Reference LLC in the publisher parameter. Now you say you want Basketball-Reference in the publisher parameter, so which one is correct?—Chris! _ct 03:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I always thought the works sections was only for newspapers, magazines, etc. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 07:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ref publishers should be in italics only if they are printed publications. The work parameter of the template forces italics, so I'm suggesting moving what's in the work parameter (Basketball-Reference) as a work-around. If you want both that and Sports Reference LLC in that parameter, that would be just fine. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• The Olympic medal record and jersey photo are both pushing edit links to the left, a condition known as edit bunching. Possible remedies include moving the medal record up a paragraph and moving the photo, perhaps down to the Career achievements section.

I fix this, I think.—Chris! _ct 03:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Would be nice to have ISBN numbers for The Winner Within and Chuck Taylor, Converse All Star.

Got em. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 07:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Really picky, but while I'm here, should the various abbreviations in the Works section be spelled out? I'm talking about the states etc., though I think F. Watts is fine. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed—Chris! _ct 03:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- am highly familiar with this article because I collaborated with other editors for its GA nom and first FAC run. Have not touched it much since then but I think others have slowly beaten it into shape. Chensiyuan (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• I recommend another copy-editing pass to ensure everything has been ironed out. I'm honestly not fond of this part: "I practiced all day," he later said. "I dribbled to the store with my right hand and back with my left. Then I slept with my basketball." — it kind of reminds me of something we'd see in a sports column. Perhaps you could paraphrase? There's also some...subjective redundancies, such as "In what is still the most-watched college basketball game" and "Previously, HIV had been associated with drug addicts and homosexuals,". Nice, straight-ahead sports article. — Deckiller 03:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope that those examples at least have been edited satisfactorily. Do you have any other pressing examples, or has the copy-editing really finally finished? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 12:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment—article's prose is quite good; it's definitely nothing to oppose over. The article does a nice job in noting Johnson's on- and off-court significance. — Deckiller 20:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment It's close, but some more copy-editing is still required. In the very first paragraph, for instance, we have this: Johnson "returned to win the MVP of the 1992 All-Star Game." One doesn't "win" the Most Valuable Player; one "is" (or some other form of the verb to be) MVP, or one wins the MVP Award. I see other small issues like this scattered around the article—it needs another ce pass to meet prose requirements. I'm happy to assist, if you like.

Could you help ? I mean, any assistance I would much appreciate. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 00:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• One substantive request: proper sourcing for the height and weight information in the infobox. He is currently listed at 6-foot-9, 255 pounds. What's the source for that? Basketball-reference.com, which is used for his NBA stats, lists him at 6-foot-8, 215 pounds. I can believe he's put on 40 pounds since his retirement (though, actually, why should we be interested at all in his retirement weight?--I would either cut that or list his playing weight, identified as such); has he actually grown an inch?!—DCGeist (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

His NBA bio lists him as the measurements given in the article. But I've just changed it to include his playing height and weight (no idea why his height is different). Noble Story (talk • contributions) 00:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that you have two authoritative sources giving different figures, it's fine to choose one as this is an infobox (in running text, we'd want to spell out the disagreement). But you should probably put notes next to both height and weight in which you directly cite the source and mention the competing source and figure. —DCGeist (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked around, and it seems that many more sources list Johnson as 6-ft-9 than 6-ft-8; I see that 6-ft-9 is also the height that you've gone with in the running text of the article (in the Career achievements section). Finally, I found a published source that gives exactly the same height and weight figures as NBA.com. Given that, I've restored the figures you had before. I've also included footnotes giving the sources for 6-ft-9/255 lbs., while noting Basketball-Reference.com's variant figures. I've been unable to figure out how to make the footnotes appear properly within this bio infobox template (I tried running them both right next to the figures and one space removed, and the template was not happy); if some one does know the proper coding, that would be great, but it's not crucial that these notes be visible. (Thanks to Chrishomingtang for adjusting the template to allow for the proper appearance of the footnotes.) I hope you approve of the adjustment. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support With the copyediting from a few different hands over the past day, it looks like it's there. Well done.—DCGeist (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The prose is generally good, and the article is well-referenced. Images are useful and comply with all guidelines. I hope you don't mind, but I've performed some minor copyedits myself; in this case it was quicker than listing the necessary tweaks here. Overall though, nice work; I enjoyed reading the article. Good luck with the remainder of this nomination. Steve ^{T • C} 21:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:50, 18 April 2009 [8].

---

Street newspaper

Nominator(s): rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs

I have been working on expanding this article for almost exactly two months (since this) and have gotten a lot of good help with cleanup from GAN (Hunter Kahn and Mattisse) and PR (Brianboulton); Apoc2400 has also been doing a lot of work creating short articles on individual street newspapers so that this isn't a stand-alone article but is part of a topic. I think by now we've built it into something interesting and good, and I would like to take it through FAC. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Tech. Review

Dabs and external links (checker tools)

• ..are found up to speed

Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS)

• There are duplications of the following refs (coding copied below), a ref name should be used instead

• Howley 2003:9.
• Howley 2003:11.

• Multiple refs use the following ref name, when only one ref should have the ref name

• Howley20039--₮RUCӨ 21:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed duplicate refs. Thanks for running that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• ..is found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 21:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment from nominator: the final two subsections ("challenges" and "debate"), which are currently part of the big Description section, could easily be part of a new level-2 sections (which would allow the Description section to cover just the three main points that are given in the bullets at the beginning); the only thing holding me back has been that I can't think of what the title for such a section would be. If people think they should be in a new section, that is a relatively easy fix (we would just need to think of a good name for it). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment A minor nitpick but I'll leave it to you to fix, as it will mean restructuring a section; The Gambia is by no possible definition "in the southern hemisphere". – iridescent 12:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Whoops, you're right. I'll try to rewrite that bit, it's a bit awkward anyway. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, rewritten a bit. In early versions of this article I was trying to cram in every country possible in that paragraph, but now that there is a {{street newspapers}} template at the bottom of the article, it's probably not necessary to list them all, so I've simplified it a bit. Thanks for that catch, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 1 is lacking a publisher
• Current ref 2 is lacking a last access date.
• What makes http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-157259200.html a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Added the information for refs 1 and 2. Removed the third one; I think I just threw it in early on so I could add another country, but in any case it's not very important, and the sentence already has two other references. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments:
• In the lead paragraph, the last sentence is awkward and partly redundant. "Finally" is unnecessary and distracting, and an earlier sentence already notes that the papers "primarily provide coverage about homelessness and poverty-related issues", and it is implicit from the rest of the paragraph that the audience is non-homeless people who buy the papers, so the fact they "seek to educate non-homeless readers about homelessness" is redundant.
  • Ok, I've just removed the entire sentence. You're right, it was redundant with the surrounding text; I think it was a leftover that slipped through the cracks when I was overhauling the lede. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• In the last sentence of the lead section, it should be more explicit how "concentrates on attracting mainstream readers" is at odds with "emphasize homeless advocacy and social issues". That is, what kind of content do some papers use to attract mainstream readers?
  • Reworded to "concentrates on attracting a large readership through coverage of mainstream issues and pop culture". Is that acceptable, or do you think it should be still more specific? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    • That's perfect. It's well-described in the body, so the lead just needs to describe the basic difference.--ragesoss (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• In the historical foundations section: who is Norma Fay Green? A historian? An advocate for the homeless? A mainstream journalist? A street newspaper writer or publisher? Also, the same footnote is used twice in that sentence, once in the middle and again at the end. This seems unnecessary.
  • She is a professor of journalism, who does a lot of research on the history of street papers. If I began that clause "journalism scholar Norma Fay Green has cited..." (added bit in italics), would that clarify things? I wanted to put her name in just because the comparison between War Cry and street newspapers isn't necessarily 100% fact, it's just a claim she made (and a lot of other people have since repeated), so I felt I should make that clear. As for the duplicated ref, I have now removed the first instance of it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    • "Journalism scholar" would indeed clarify things.--ragesoss (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Where was Hobo News published?
  • Not really sure. This gives me the impression that it may have been St. Louis, but I'm not totally comfortable with that. Chapter 5 of this book looks like it might have the answer to your question, but I can't access it online; I can take a look at it next time I'm in the library, either Sunday or Monday. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    • "It is published in St. Louis or Cincinnati, depending upon where the editor happens to be, but generally it has come from St. Louis, How's [J.E. How] home."[9] I am writing Hobo News now. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I just put Cincinatti in this article; I checked the Heinz source today, and it only says Cincinatti, as does this (don't let the geocities link scare you; it's a reprint of something that was published in a journal, and the geocities url is just a convenient way to access it). The book Apoc linked above does say St. Louis, but 1) it only says it was "published from" St. Louis, not that it was sold or circulated there; and 2) it's a reprint of a contemporary source, and I'm not even sure yet who the author is, so anyway I think the other two sources trump it. My library is all out of this book right now, but whenever it gets in I can check it as well. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• The reference to increasing homelessness as the precursor to modern street newspapers should link to the appropriate section in Homelessness in the United States, e.g., "increasing levels of homelessness".
  • Done. Thanks for the suggestion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Modern street newspapers section, last sentence: pick either parentheses or commas to set off of the example.
  • Ok, I put it in parentheses. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Last sentence of the Operations and business section: "most papers sell as few as 3,000 copies a month" is a confusing phrase. "As few as" sets a minimum, but this is set up in contrast to The Big Issue, which is also above that minimum. Is around 3,000 a typical range? If most (>50% of) papers sell as few as 3000, does that mean the rest sell even fewer?
  • Would this problem be solved if I just change "most" to "many"? It would make the claim a little less strong, but I think it would clear up the logical issues. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, "many" works. I almost changed it to that myself, but I wasn't sure if the sources pointed to something more precise.--ragesoss (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• First sentence of the second paragraph in the Coverage section: weird un-parallel syntax, with "in that...and because".
  • Corrected. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• What is the "citizen journal movement"? Is that supposed to be "citizen journalism movement", or is "citizen journal movement" a common term for the promotion of citizen journalism (or perhaps something more specific)? If the latter, citizen journal movement should be linked (or if it's definitely not notable, briefly explained, possibly in a footnote).
  • Just a typo. Fixed now. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Last sentence of Coverage section: "debate between professional and grassroots ideals"... the ideals themselves don't debate.
  • Added "adherents of". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

--ragesoss (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nice work. Support, assuming that you track down the detail about Hobo News and implement the other changes that you proposed but didn't yet implement. Feel free to strike my remaining comments as appropriate.--ragesoss (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Image review. I've verified that all the images conform to image policies.--ragesoss (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Very succinct and straight forward. Other than obscure MoS issues, which I can't vouch for, the article fulfills the FA criteria. I have been through the article and can find nothing to pick apart. I admit that when you started it, I did not think you could pull it together and make a complete and interesting article out of such an idiosyncratic topic. But you did. Very nice job! —Mattisse (Talk) 01:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose (WP:WIAFA#3): policy violations of non-free images

• File:Bigissue.jpg: what is this copyrighted image doing here except to illustrate the subject (i.e. decorative purpose)? It certainly does not show any "flashiness" that is source of controversy among street newspapers. Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• File:243187290 9e3c50a6a3.jpg: why can the "sorts of issues covered in" this image not be easily described in words? Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• File:EdMcLain.jpg: how can we be certain this image was uploaded and licensed by an authorized employee of Real Change? OTRS is required. Jappalang (talk) 07:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• To be honest, I don't think this is necessary at all (we AGF on images all the time, look at the tens of images I have photographed and uploaded—are we going to require OTRS on all of them now to make sure I'm really the person who took the photos?)...but I have contacted Real Change anyway. And if people still think it's a problem, I can easily replace it with any of the others at commons:Category:Street papers. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The non-free images presently do not comply with the WP:NFCC policy. Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree; personally, I think the images illustrate these points far better than a text description does, but you're free to think otherwise. (I'll also note that another editor here said the images are within our policy...so clearly we are all having different ways of interpreting the same policy.) Also, displaying these old covers is not hurting the papers' ability to sell copies. In any case, there is not going to be any free replacement for any of them (as far as I know, covers for other papers will be just as copyrighted as these), so if these images aren't ok then no others will be either. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are not proper rationales to overcome the concern that these images are purely decorative. The images can be easily described in words and are not significant in the context used (failing WP:NFCC #1 and 8); non-free images have to fulfill all 10 criteria listed in the policy. Jappalang (talk) 07:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Again: that's just something we disagree on. You think words can describe it well, I think they can't; it's personal taste. Can we wait to see what someone else has to say on it? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The two covers do show the different content focus of these two papers. The Big Issue example is about music festivals, i.e. not about homelessness and poverty. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Point is not to illustrate what can easily be said; why can the article not describe what sort of issues the two papers were covering? "Instead of covering topics such as homelessness and poverty, Big Issue spends much of its pages on music festivals and popular culture; its cover page displays professional shots, printed on glossy format." states everything in that image clearly. The same goes for the other paper: its caption (and main body text) more than adequately describes what it has to show in words, so what is the point of the picture? Hence, the two pictures are mainly just for show—"pretty pictures". Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree. While these particular images aren't the only ones that could serve their purpose, illustrations of a) what different kinds of street newspapers look like, and b) what Big Issue in particular looks like, are important things for the article to show that can't be explained easily with text or replaced with free images. Maybe the rationales themselves could be expanded a bit to explain more fully why are needed, but I think the uses of these images are basically consistent with the non-free content policy. Regarding the Real Change image, it is our convention to assume good faith when the uploader claims to be the copyright holder.--ragesoss (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And I too disagree. Words cannot describe adequately layouts, mastheads, and headlines that combine to create the effect of a newspaper's front page. An article about The New York Times could not merely describe the effect of that newspaper's front page in words. —Mattisse (Talk) 11:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is not commenting on the layout of the individual publications, nor their (layouts) effects on the consumers. It is discussing their contents (topics). Ragesoss, if the rationales are expanded to state why they are needed instead of "To illustrate the appearance of a street newspaper and the sorts of issues covered in it." and "Illustrate appearance and "flashiness" that has caused The Big Issue to be a source of controversy among street newspaper.", (which I have pointed out above was totally replaceable by words), I might be convinced of their fair use(again that depends on stating adequately why the covers of this two papers must be in this general article about street newspapers). Jappalang (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A picture's worth a thousand words. I would venture to guess that just about every fair use image on Wikipedia could be replaced with a text description of it...but that doesn't mean the description would be effective or concise. It's my impression that this is the very reason we have fair use guidelines: to allow the use of media when it helps explain a topic and when it doesn't infringe the copyright holder's ability to make money from it (and I believe these images meet both those broad criteria). As other editors have stated above, I believe the images are far more effective in expressing these ideas, and increasing readers' understanding of the topic, than a mere description would be; that's why I included them. Trust me, when I was writing this article I really did think long and hard about how best to express the important ideas; I haven't just been adding "decorations" haphazardly. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

An attempted analogy of the two images lumped as one (you can simply skip to the last paragraph if you do not wish to read an attempt to focus on the issue at hand, failure or otherwise):

"Imagine an article about the Cherry Leopard genus (yes, I am probably killing the scientific classification system, but bear with me). Most images are in the public domain, taken by federal photographers or licensed for use under CC. However, a copyrighted photo of a rare blue Cherry Leopard species is claimed as fair use. The blue creature has the exact form and features of the standard animal, except that its fur is blue. The article only speaks of the creature as rare, and claims as fair use 'illustration of a rare species'. This, however, fails fair use: the description can be readily expressed in words (form and features easily known, just visualise blue). Defenders of the image simply chime: 'we need the picture to know what it looks like, it does not hurt the photographer's right to sell the image', failing to note that the reviewer is asking for justification to use the image. Another repeated the same thing, but with addages of 'well, the rationales could do with some work' (which was part of what the reviewer was asking but constantly ignored). One more stated, 'the image shows the inspring form and sleekness of the blue Cherry Leopard, which are distinct for its species and cannot be readily expressed in words, as poets have expressed much of their frustration at'. True, but the article never commented anything about the majesticness of the creature (what was discussed was its rarity) nor did the article go into literary aspects of the creature." [Yes, one could claim that the creature is so rare that it is "fair use" as an identification image, but that purpose is weakened when the species has its own article.]

In short, neither copyrighted image in this article is specifically used in a manner that words cannot easily express. From the start of my comments, I was expecting answers to my first questions, hoping that the editors can respond, and we can find something to work on. Instead, all I have been getting is simply "I think it serves a purpose"—no replies to what I have been asking, no attempt to write up expanded rationales that show why the images are used not for illustrative purposes, and a misdirected approach (the images are used to show content, not layout). What I am seeing is an avoidance to actually answer the questions posed: what are the images, as used in the article, supposed to show that cannot be easily described in words? Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle dealt with its fair use images better than this article (albeit File:Energybending.PNG would need some form of its caption in its rationale, instead of "Illustrates part of the article's purpose"). If I am not getting any answers to this, my oppose stands as is. Jappalang (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Again: what we are disagreeing on is "used in a manner that words cannot easily express". You think words can easily express it; I and all the editors who responded above think words can't. By now everyone knows how you feel on the matter and everyone knows how I feel, and neither of us is going to change the other's mind, so I guess we might as well just drop it and wait for the closer to decide. (I will note, though, that in the article you pointed to above, I could say the same thing you've been saying about File:Lion Turtle Sage02d.jpg—why include the image when we could just say "the art was really good"? And the image doesn't illustrate anything about the character's voice.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, for an answer to your last question... The Big Issue one is used not just to "show content," but production value and "flashiness," as stated in the NFUR. I could use the word "flashy" a hundred times in the article but it wouldn't get the same understanding across as well (and the copyeditors wouldn't be very happy). The Spare Change one is to show an example of the appearance of a different kind of street newspaper; just because it's not "flashy" like the other one doesn't mean it looks like a regular newspaper, it clearly has much different (more tabloid-style) format than a regular newspaper. It's in the Coverage section, which aims to describe what you'll find when you buy a street newspaper and reading it; that involves not just the content of what you're going to read, but the way it is presented, and there's not really a better way to describe the full effect than with an actual image of a paper. Anyway, I have now updated the Big Image caption (diff) and the Spare Change NFUR (diff). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, the lion turtle sage was used to illustrate the art style, which is not easily described with words (what is "good"). Can you accurately describe the lines drawn and the visage of the object soley with words? That is totally different with what you are doing with the newspaper images. In effect, this shows you have misunderstood what I meant by "can be easily described with words". The Spare Change FUR is still invalid; nowhere in this article is there a commentary about the layout of this paper. As for Big Issue, avoid the general "appearance and flashiness", go with more specifics that pertain to the commentary in the article, i.e. point out why the glossiness, layout, masthead, etc (take inspiration from items pointed out above) contributed to the "production values and mainstream appeal of professionally produced" publication and that this image is to show all those concepts. Basically, explain on the image page (as rationale) that the image should not be taken away because of that. This is sort of what I am looking for. Jappalang (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't misunderstand, I just disagree. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As for the NPD on the Real Change image. Ordinarily, the image contributions of editors are not questioned; however, I have two exceptions: professional photos or those professed to have been taken by professionals, and those proclaimed to be uploaded by companies. Their livelihood in part involves copyright, and a sense of prudence on such images is well advised; a short stint of patrols on uploaded pictures have shown a fair number of such images uploaded by those who falsely claim copyright or that the holders have given clearance. Jappalang (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it, as it's not really important enough to fight over and I don't really care. I can maybe re-add it in the future if either a) I get an e-mail from Real Change (they haven't responded to me yet), or b) enough people here decide that OTRS isn't needed. Then again, it was kind of awkwardly jammed in anyway, I don't know if there's a comfortable place to stick it. Whatever, we'll see. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Update It took a while, but I got in touch with Real Change and how now obtained verification of its status and forwarded the permission to OTRS. Accordingly, I have re-added File:EdMcLain.jpg to the article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

oppose - The two modern front covers are unjustified under WP:NFCC#3, has an attempt even been made to contact the publishers regarding licencing? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If enough people agree the Street Sense cover is unnecessary, I might remove it. As of now, though, I see no consensus either way—Jappalang has made some good arguments (and has helped improve the NFUR for the Big Issue image) but at the same time several other editors agreed that the image met the criteria. I would like to hear more input before deciding one way or the other. If enough people agree that the picture doesn't meet the criteria, it's a very simple matter to remove it it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

errata That should have been WP:NFCC#8 (although it is also inviolation, #3), I was thinking of #3 in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, for which there is a clear WP:CONSENSUS Fasach Nua (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about consensus on whether or not there is consensus for FAC criterion #3, which everyone already agrees on. I'm talking about whether there is consensus that the image violates it, which people do not agree on (see above). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Big Issue cover meets NFCC #8 (the version of the article I'm looking at only has one fair use cover). "Professional" appearance can mean a lot of different things to readers, so it is a good idea to have a representative cover, in my opinion. Awadewit (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion three:
  • File:243187290 9e3c50a6a3.jpg does not appear to be contributing significantly to our understanding (NFCC#8). General layouts of newspapers and tabloids are not obscure concepts needing illustration and such information can be gleaned from the free, although de minimus, occurrences already in the article; this cover does not appear to be unique or otherwise meaningful/important. That the illustration is not needed notwithstanding, I rather doubt a thorough, if any, effort was made to contact various publishing organizations (this cover even has a web address) to determine whether even one would be willing to license a cover with a free license (NFCC#1). Subordinate issues also include failure to acknowledge a copyright holder (NFCC#10A), etc.
  • File:Bigissue.jpg needs to attribute a copyright holder (The Big Issue Foundation), but inclusion appears otherwise supported. Эlcobbola _talk 16:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Question - when you say "attribute a copyright holder", do you mean in the image caption within the article, or in the NFUR on the image page? I don't see a field for copyright holder (only |source=) but I suppose I could use |other_information=. As for File:243187290 9e3c50a6a3.jpg, I am talking with a couple editors (including Jappalang above) about possibly removing it, and I will let you know what happens. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • This was all you need to do. You don't need to attribute in the article itself, just the description page. Эlcobbola _talk 18:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Update After doing some thinking, and discussing this with Jappalang, I have removed File:243187290 9e3c50a6a3.jpg from the article. I am still not entirely convinced that the image is useless, but enough people have raised concerns that I need to address them. I believe that with copyright and fair use issues, a simple majority isn't enough "consensus" for inclusion—we need to err on the side of caution, and so should only be including fair-use stuff when there is an overwhelming consensus in favor of having it. Since opinion is divided right now, I think it's safest just to remove the image. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - (this version)
  • Street newspapers, or street papers, are newspapers or magazines that are sold by homeless or poor individuals and produced mainly to support these populations.
    • The two "or"s in there, seem a little redundant to me. Any way to reword this? It's not a big deal, but just food for thought.
  • They are supported by governments, charities, and coalitions such as the International Network of Street Papers and the North American Street Newspaper Association.
    • Do governments actively support the papers? The way this sentence is worded, it sounds as though they give minetary support (if they do, ignore this please)
  • Several publications by charity, religious, and labor organizations tried to draw attention to the homeless in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Not until the 1990s did modern street newspapers become common, after the founding of New York City's Street News in 1989.
    • Suggest a rewording of "Several publications by charity, religious, and labor organizations tried to draw attention to the homeless in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but they only became common after the founding of New York City's Street News in 1989."
  • I'll admit that I skimmed the article, but this was quite an interesting topic that I had not known about. Hope to see this on the main page sometime! :) Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Note I asked Ed for a review, see User talk:The ed17#Request for feedback.

In response to your comments....

• I could reword that first sentence to "Street newspapers (also called street papers) are newspapers or magazines that are sold by homeless or poor individuals and produced mainly to support these populations." I guess it's a matter of whether parentheses are worse than two "or"s. I will keep thinking about other possibilities.
• Re government funding: yes, it appears that a lot of these papers are supported by local government grants: "most of them are dependent on government and private grants and corporate sponsorship", and the Heinz and Green refs also mention it (might be visible in Google Books, but I'll have to take a look in a moment). I don't think any of them are specific about what proportion of papers are supported by local governments, or how much they are supported.
• Good suggestion on the 3rd one, I will make that edit now. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You could also use "Street newspapers, also called street papers, are newspapers...." or "Street newspapers, also known as street papers, are newspapers...." —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah...fancy that! I like the first one. Changed, and now I feel quite silly. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Leaning towards support - This is a well-written and interesting article. I'm wondering if it is possible to cover more of the day-to-day operations of the newspapers or if those are too diverse to cover in such a broad article? Also, I found the list of references surprisingly short. Is there really this little published on street newspapers? Awadewit (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

About references... are you referring to the Bibliography, or the entire reflist? The bibliography only includes book references and academic journal articles (basically, things with page numbers). Stuff like newspaper articles, web pages, speeches, etc., are long-form footnotes. Talk:Street newspaper#More sources has a few more sources that I haven't gotten around to looking at closely or integrating into the article yet, but they all fall into the latter category and would not lengthen the "Bibliography" list (at least, not the way that list is organized now).

About day-to-day operations...I can take a look at some of the sources and see if there are more details on that sort of thing. I think you're right that it would vary a lot between the small rinky-dink ones (which I imagine don't have much "day-to-day", they probably get thrown together in short bursts by people who have other jobs most of the time) and the more professional ones that have a large paid staff and stuff like that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I mean "references" in a general sense - I was surprised that there wasn't more published information on this topic available to use in the article. Are you at that point in the research when the sources start repeating themselves and referring back to things you have already read?

I wonder if a bit more could be added about the day-to-day operations of the newspapers that aren't professional. It is pretty easy to imagine what professionals do, but the production style and work habits of non-professionals, who have the severe limitations of homelessness, poverty, etc., might be worth adding into the article. Awadewit (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. Yep, there really is not a whole lot of information out there on this topic, as it's not a major area of study—as you can guess by looking at the version of the article before I started editing it, this is not a topic that many people are thinking about. You're right that most sources are more or less repeating themselves by now; for example, when that NYT piece came out two days ago I was excited, but there's actually not a whole lot there that I hadn't already put in the article, other than a few bits and pieces about how the recent economic downturn has affected street papers.

As for day-to-day operations of the newspapers...I think there's an abundance of information on the day-to-day of the vendors (several sources I have include vendors talking about their strategies, dealing with "turf", etc.), but not so much about the writing/publishing of the papers. As far as I can tell right now, anything I could add would essentially be speculation based on a few specific examples (i.e., I have some articles that might very briefly mention the operations of Paper X, but off the top of my head I'm not aware of any that discuss it in a more general sense). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: this might have a little of what you're looking for (the full citation is at Talk:Street newspaper#More sources). It's written as instructions/suggestions for how to start up and run a paper (by Tim Harris, the director of Real Change, so I think that should help with reliability) but might also help give a general impression what the day-to-day business is like. I have only had a chance to skim it so far, so I'll try to look into it a little more. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems a little too personal to me. I suppose this is just the sort of information that is difficult to come by. I've changed to full support. Awadewit (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Leaning towards support - Quite an interesting article.

• My issues: Prose needs some fixing here and there. Overlinking is prevalent throughout (United States is linked). I don't mind giving the article a copy edit, but I want to ask that before I go in and change stuff that you argued with someone for three weeks on how to state something. Minor things that add up: two sentences in Historical foundations start with "Another...". I wish you provided an example or two of how mainstream media portrayed the homeless per the first sentence in Modern street newspapers. The section just above Debate is Challenges and criticisms. They seem kind of synonymous.
• Tell me (convince me) why the main description is in bullet points.
• Recently I wrote Save Our Children, that interestingly, had a bit about specialized media outlets catering to gays and fundamentalist Christians. I'm making my own connections between such specialized media, but most of these outlets are considered reliable sources depending on what they're being used for. What I didn't see in this article is mainstream journalism's views of how reliable the information is in street papers. Do they get scooped often? Have any of the papers influenced mainstream journalism to cover issues of homelessness and disadvantaged people? --Moni3 (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• About the prose: I don't mind if you tweak things. I've had a hard time copyediting the article with a view towards the whole thing, since I put it together in such a piecemeal fashion, and between different copyeditors some things have been changed back and forth depending on the copyeditor's preference. But anyway, you are welcome to do more copyediting if you're interested. I will take a look at the "another" thing you pointed out and try to think of a good rewording.

• I tried this to remove the extra "another". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• About "debate" vs. "challenges and criticisms": the latter section is intended to be about mainly external challenges the papers face and criticisms they receive, whereas the former is about a split between different kinds of papers. Its original section title was "Schism between street newspapers" (which I threw in for lack of a better idea), and at PR it was changed to "Debate between street newspapers" because "schism" sounds too religious; then, of course, "between street newspapers" was dropped altogether because of MoS concerns. I'm still not totally satisfied with the current way the section is titled, so I'm open to suggestions.

• What about changing the section title to "Differing approaches", "Differing viewpoints", something along those lines? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I put the main description in bullet points because I thought it was a clear way to express that these papers generally have three separate kinds of goals that, while related, are also very different. It also seemed like a good way to digest and summarize a lot of yada yada that occurs in the sources, pretty much all of which boils down to these three points. Also, in earlier revisions of this article (before GAN) the "challenges/criticisms" and "debate" sections hadn't been added yet, the Description section just had three subsections, and the three bullet points fit well with the structure of the article—each bullet point corresponded to a specific subsection. To be honest, I am still somewhat considering going back to that kind of format, and splitting the "challenges" and "debate" subsections out into a different section (I mentioned that at the top of this FAC, just below the tech review, but didn't get any input). So anyway, that was my rationale for using bullets.
• As for your last comment...I haven't found many sources that talk about perception of how reliable street papers are, but several do discuss people's perception of the quality (ie, quality of writing, and importance of the stuff they cover); most of that is in the Ryerson Review of Journalism source and covered in the "Challenges and criticisms" section. As for reliability, I haven't seen much yet; I have noticed some isolated things here and there, like a story about a Toronto street newspaper that was apparently being used as a vehicle for mostly racist propaganda (that hasn't been incorporated into this article yet, but I think I have the citation at Talk:Toronto Street News), but nothing really that would suggest a general trend. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I added a sentence with more specifics about mainstream media's portrayal of homelessness in the '80s, per your request. I'm not sure how much more it would be reasonable to add; to me, this seems to get the point across pretty strongly. Let me know if there's anything else that you think is needed there. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Ref number 4 lacks an access date and I think you should change the format of date that ref 18 was retrieved to be consistent with the rest of the article. I didn't have a chance to check the rest of the article's access dates.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  11:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed those, and a couple others I noticed. Thanks for catching that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:50, 18 April 2009 [10].

---

1964 Brinks Hotel bombing

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

A Vietcong bombing in 1964. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- Dabs and external links (checker tools), and ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS) are found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 02:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a. I got mired in problems pretty quickly and I think this should have some solid time with a copyeditor before further examination is possible. Samples from the lead:
  • The first sentence of the lead seems oddly repetitive: "The Brinks Hotel bombing ... was a bomb attack on the Brinks Hotel"
  • "Aimed at a building that housed United States Army officers, the explosion killed two Americans and injured 58 others." A couple problems: first, the dangling modifier (the explosion wasn't aimed.. surely the bomb?), and second, why the prominent mention of Americans killed while the others are relegated to "others"?
  • "Firstly, by attacking an American institution in the core of the heavily guarded capital, it demonstrated ..." The "it" is ambiguous. The only possible subjects you've introduced thus far are the Vietcong commanders, who are not an "it".
  • The "firstly" and "second" statements need parallel structure; they are at odds currently.
  • "The bombing prompted debate within the administration of Lyndon Baines Johnson, with most of his advisors favouring ..." Troublesome "with noun +ing" construction. The whole of the sentence needs work.

--Laser brain (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, the Monkey has done a self-copyedit. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• More - I've gone through and made some more fixes, and it is looking good. A couple other items I'd like to clear up before supporting:
  • "The pair drove their vehicles into the hotel ..." To me, this reads like they smashed their cars into the hotel. What is the correct meaning? They drove to the hotel, or they drove into a hotel garage or similar? I see later that there was a parking area under the hotel, but perhaps it bears stating here, earlier in the text.

I've reworded it...Drove a vehicle to the entrance normally.... YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "Despite the clerk's reply that the colonel had left the country, the "major" insisted that he had not, and parked his car in the lot beneath the hotel, before telling his chauffeur to fetch the American with the other vehicle." I found this difficult to follow. Are you saying that the "major" told the clerk that he did these things, or that he left the clerk to do them at this time?

Reworded. The VC and ARVN knew the US officer was gone, but the VC kept on insisting he had an appointment and then parked his car with bomb in the carpark. Then the VC told his partner to go and pick up the officer (a getaway decoy), and the driver drove away. Then he said he was going for dinner (another getaway decoy) and walked out. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support, looks great. Interesting topic to boot. --Laser brain (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Images checked and are ok 2 images, both military public domain and both seem fine, Tom B (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. With the additional background information, all my questions have been resolved. Thank you for educating me :) Karanacs (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Comments. Overall, I thought this was a well-done article, but the reaction section is written almost entirely from the American perspective. What was the reaction, if any, in South Vietnam, and particularly in Saigon (especially considering civilians were injured)? Was the US blamed? Did people believe that the Vietcong were involved? Was there any reaction in North Vietnam (although I suspect that information might be difficult to find)? How were the bombers identified? Were they rewarded/punished for their actions? Karanacs (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Added VC radio proclamation taking credit. Added details of a VC conference resolution (meeting was secret). No official reaction in NVN as they officially claimed to not be infilitrating the south at the time (noted in article). It's very typical in Asian countries, especially authoritarian nationalist ones, Vietnam is no different that people will never admit to any mistakes, so in newspapers and political speeches, they will always say that they won every battle, no matter how badly they actually lost. As you can't win a bombing, I wouldn't be suprised if there was no announcement at all by teh government or that the press chose to remain silent. The month before a whole pile of papers were banned by the govt for publicising VC successes...None of the books noted any south Vietnamese reaction...also the day of the bombing, the SV leaders had angrily denounced the US and threatened to expel the ambassador (background added) so maybe they were too busy to pay attention to a small bombing in terms of Viet casualties (5000 public servants inc teachers, nurses etc were usually murdered per year by the VC not in battle but by kidnapping and execution + soldiers etc), the impact of the bombing was mainly to embarrass the US Army. Well the bombers were never caught otherwise they would have been put to death, and probably owned up publicly after 1975 [not stated in the source] and they wouldn't have done a Hamas style suicide type otherwise their family would get put in jail. Karnow was the only person who interviewed the agent, the others just copied him, and he didn't give any other information about it. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Other minor issue : Following World War I, the communist-dominated Vietminh - isn't that supposed to be WWII? Karanacs (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed this. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Support I think this has the potential to be a very nice article, but at the moment the prose is just not there. Examples below:

• "was an attack on the hotel of the same name in Saigon" - redundancy, try "was an attack on a hotel in Saigon"
• "The bomb was targeted at a building" - awkward, perhaps "The bomb was detonated underneath the hotel, which housed"
• "with two aims in mind" - "two objectives"
• "However, the elections were cancelled" - doesn't need "however"
• Capitalise "North" and "South" when referring to the countries
• "With the Cold War in full-flight" - the correct colloquial term is full-swing, but I suggest using "at its height"
• The sentences that begin "The building housed . . ." would be better located after ". . . received orders from an intermediary to bomb the Brinks Hotel".
• "as a ARVN major" - "as an ARVN major"
• "going to a nearby café for sustenance" - no need for "for sustenance".
• "the explosion occurred" - "the bomb detonated"
• "causing a fireball to erupt" - "creating a fireball"
• "American entertainers such as Bob Hope" - "American entertainers, including Bob Hope,"
• "Some of our local squabbles will probably disappear in enthusiasm which our action would generate" - Are you sure this quote is correct? It doesn't seem to make sense.
• "However, at the time, the South Vietnamese government had been unstable" - wrong tense "However, the South Vietnamese government of the time was unstable"
• "Johnson administration officials concluded that the Vietcong perpetrated the attack only a few days after the bombing" - this seems to (sort of) contradict the previous sentence - do you have nay more information on the investigation? Was this information released?
• "something that" - "a strategy that"
• "However, the attack fomented feelings of insecurity" - drop the "however", no paragraph should begin with "however"
• "This increased the tension between the president and his advisors" - with what result
• Its not essential, but do you know the names of the officers killed? It would be an interesting extra bit of information (according to [11], the only soldier recorded as dying on this date is Lieutenant Colonel James Hagen, so presumably the other death was from wounds some time later).

There's another guy who died a few weeks later with the same death description, both MACV and a few of the same RIP messages, so I think I identified them. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is avery interesting article and once the above are dealt with I'd be happy to lend my support. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I fixed all the rest. I'm surprised that Laser brain OKed the prose and another found fault (a first) but it's good to see the stds rising I guess. I fixed the above examples for you but I wonder whether I am capable of finding any more .... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work. I'll do a second read through at somepoint today to see if there is anything else and decide on whether I can now support, but I think its likely that I will. The examples of prose problems were all I could find then, not a representative selection, and you seem to have taken care of them all, but I recommend another read through to check for redundancy and odd grammar. Good work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A few comments but otherwise excellent and I support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• "The bomb was detonated underneath the hotel" - a bit repetetive, how about "Two Vietcong operatives detonated a car bomb underneath the hotel".
• "demonstrated the Vietcong's ability to strike in Vietnam" - presumably this is "South Vietnam"?
• "Secondly, it demonstrated" - did it actually demonstatrate, or was it "intended to demonstrate"?
• "Vietcong agents who escaped uninjured. One of them," - "who escaped uninjured" and "of them" are redundant and can be removed

Fixed. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment — YellowMonkey appears to be an inactive user now. I sincerely hope that he'll return to finish this FAC, but reviewers should be aware of this fact. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll volunteer to address the suggestions above and monitor the nomination until we know YM's status. Please give me 24 hours or so, as The Boss will have me fully occupied tonight. --Laser brain (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. EDIT: Struck oppose. Steve ^{T • C} Generally well-written, seems well-sourced and comprehensive. I have a few issues, some of which you may disagree with, so feel free to rip me a new one in rebuttal! Comments follow. Steve ^{T • C}

  Lead

  • "the explosion killed two American officers and injured approximately 60 military personnel and Vietnamese civilians." This could, if I'm being uncharitable, be interpreted as if to say 60 military personnel died, along with some Vietnamese civilians—but only if one walks into this article expecting clunky prose; perhaps I need to get out of that mindset.
  • "the bombing intended to demonstrate the Vietcong's ability to strike in South Vietnam..." Again, maybe it's me, but shouldn't that read "the bombing was intended" or similar? Otherwise, it sounds like the bombing's intent. Alternatively, recast the sentence to use the active voice ("The Vietcong intended the bombing to...").
  • Any real need to link United States, especially twice so close together (here and in the first section)?

Fixed these, apart from teh linking thing. Link once in the lead and once in the main body, per my personal habits.

• Background and planning

  • Consider linking "17th parallel" to 17th parallel north.
  • Shouldn't Lieutenant Colonel and Major instead link instead to Lieutenant colonel (United States) and Major (United States) in this context?
  • "They observed their target over a period of time..." Potentially ambiguous "they"; the bombers haven't been mentioned at this point for a few sentences, while several other subjects have.
  • Are we happy with "late-November" and "late-1950s"? To hyphenate seems unnecessary.

I nomrally do this. Tony1 (talk · contribs) is ok with it. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• • "his partner dressed as a South Vietnamese officer..." The next section specifies a major, so perhaps we should be that specific here.
  • "over a period of time" Is this as specific as we can get? If so, consider removal/replacement with something more concise, or eliminating altogether.
  • Same "firstly" and "second" parallel structure requirement that Laser Brain mentioned above.
  • "because they using it"

Fixed the rest/ YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Execution

  • "The pair, one posing as an ARVN major and Xuan as his chauffeur..." Not sure we need this with the mention so close by in the previous section. Perhaps simply working in "were disguised" instead of the full descriptions would be suitable.
  • "Knowing from their intelligence that a certain US colonel had left for home..." I read this on the first pass to mean his "home" in the area, not the United States; only the clarification two sentences later made me backtrack.
  • "factually correct" Necessary?

Maybe. pruned to "correct"

• • Lots of repetitive uses of "the major"; the bomber appears to be unnamed, but perhaps that term (or similar) could be used to refer to him a few times.
  • "and that the American was still in South Vietnam." All redundant; the sentence begins with the clerk's telling the bomber that the colonel has left, following with the bomber's disputing it.
  • "The South Vietnamese government never caught the perpetrators." Doesn't fit in this paragraph, sandwiched between different aspects of the bombing, and perhaps doesn't fit in the section at all.
  • "was currently serving the MACV." "Currently" doesn't fit, considering this happened nearly 45 years ago. Removing the word retains the intended meaning. Also, is "serving the MACV" is missing an "in" or "with" after "serving".
  • "a total of" Almost always redundant.
  • "The injury reports are conflicting. Karnow reported that a total of 58 people (military and civilian) were injured, Mark Moyar reported that 38 American officers were wounded along with 25 Vietnamese civilians, while A. J. Langguth reported that 10 Americans and 43 Vietnamese were injured." With the exception of the wikilinked Moyar, perhaps it should be demonstrated in the text just why we're reporting the opinions of these people.

Done except Karnow who is already intro'd in the first section. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• • "girders supporting". The gerund requires this to say "girders' supporting" (you wouldn't say "me supporting", but "my supporting"). A lot of people don't like the way this renders; if you don't, then rephrase to avoid either version.
  • Comma required after Mr Hope.
  • "Lawrence J. Quirk reported that [Hope was] unharmed." Makes it sound as if it's Quirk's view that Hope and his troupe were unharmed, rather than fact.

Fixed these YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Reaction

  • "of the time" Redundant.
  • "as numerous military juntas ruled for a brief period before being deposed by another." Does this mean that the government at the time was merely the most recent in a line of juntas? It's unclear. Also, should that be "brief periods" [that each ruled for]? Unless that's the intent (several juntas in one brief period).

clarified YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• • "who felt that the officers' disputes were derailing the war effort." Which officers? The junta's? It becomes slightly clearer in subsequent sentences, but be careful of too much elegant variation, which can introduce ambiguities such as these; the article is full of creative synonyms that are perhaps unnecessary, especially in the preceding section when referring to the bombers.
  • "General William Westmoreland, the US army head in South Vietnam, Taylor, and other senior US officers in Saigon..." Makes it sound as if "the US army head in South Vietnam" was a separate person to Westmoreland.
  • "the Vietcong having" Gerund → "the Vietcong's having".
  • "Johnson administration officials finally concluded that the Vietcong perpetrated the attack four days after the bombing." Time-travelling Vietcong. Suggest re-order ("...officials concluded four days after...")
  • "international opinion towards an American air strike would be that Johnson was "trying to shoot its way out of an internal [South Vietnamese] political crisis". Johnson is referred to as "its" here. Square bracket to [his], or reword to say the Johnson administration.
  • "Johnson was recorded in administration archives as saying to Taylor that..." I'm not sure all this is relevant. Why not simply say that "Johnson told Taylor that"? Unless his words in the archives are contentious in some way?
  • I altered a couple myself, but there are still several instances of BrE variation spelling throughout.
• Otherwise, it is a very interesting read, and while that might look a long list of issues, I'm sure there isn't anything that will take a long time to resolve. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 23:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the rest YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Hope you don't mind, but I've made further language and MOS tweaks that I discovered on my second pass (it was quicker than listing them here), and you've addressed my other concerns more than satisfactorily. Nice work, Steve ^{T • C} 10:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 19:40, 14 April 2009 [12].

---

Capture of Fort Ticonderoga

Nominator(s): Magic♪piano

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it to satisfy the requirements for FA. However, this is my first submission, so I might just be wrong. The main event took place May 10, 1775; it would nice to make FA before then. Thank you for your consideration and feedback. Magic♪piano 02:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm a bit uncomfortable with "It also involved two larger-than-life personalities in Allen and Arnold, who, each seeking to gain as much credit and honor as possible for the actions taken, engaged in a war of words and politics that still echoes today", especially in the lead, as there's no evidence presented anywhere in the article for this being the case. The War of Words section does say "As a consequence of this war of words, histories and biographies sometimes contain conclusions and observations that reflect the author's preferred subject", but gives only two examples, one of which is over 100 years old. I've no reason to doubt it, but if this academic dispute is the main legacy of the incident (as the article seems to suggest), it needs to be sourced that the dispute is still ongoing. – iridescent 12:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I had actually hoped to find a good instance of a more recent Allen bio that shows a more overt bias, but haven't had any luck yet. This is one reason why I characterized the war of words as "echoing" -- there's not much left to it, as most biographies and histories are now somewhat more evenhanded, as later research has punctured Allen's self-promotion and somewhat rehabilitated Arnold's reputation.

One question of clarification: are you also objecting that the phrase "larger-than-life personalities" is not adequately addressed (by their respective behaviors)? I could deal with that more explicitly, but I'd have to bring in more biographic details than I thought were appropriate for this article. (I could also moderate the language, using something like "brash" or "bold" instead of "larger-than-life".) Magic♪piano 13:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure if this is a "you need to cite that the sky is blue" situation. Growing up in upstate NY, the history of the American Revolution I was taught was along the lines of "Saratoga, Ticonderoga, and a bunch of Virginians but they owned slaves", so it's hard to assess it objectively as I'm too familiar with their personalities. I personally don't think it needs to be cited – "self-appointed military leader" by definition implies a larger-than-life personality as far as I'm concerned – but someone with less knowledge of the figures involved would probably be better placed to comment. (Note: don't read anything I've said as an oppose, just an observation). – iridescent 15:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Tech. Review

• Based on the respective checker tools in the toolbox, the dabs and external links of the article are found up to speed.
• Ref formatting is not found up to speed (based on WP:REFTOOLS script)

• The following refs (coding pasted below) are duplicated and appear more than once in the ref section, a ref name should be used instead

• [[#Chittenden|Chittenden]], p. 109
• [[#Randall|Randall]], p. 104
• [[#Bellesiles|Bellesiles]], p. 117
• [[#Randall|Randall]], p. 86
• [[#Bellesiles|Bellesiles]], p. 116

• The following ref names are used more than once to name different refs, when they should only be naming one ref

• Chittenden109
• Randall104
• Bellesiles117
• Randall86
• Bellesiles116--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the refs did not actually appear more than once in the refs section, as a visual inspection of the article would have made clear. In any event, I have removed the duplicated reference texts. Magic♪piano 16:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I was one of those who reviewed this for MILHIST's A-class rating. The only suggestion I have is to add locations and OCLC's to all of the books in your bibliography; just enter the ISBN in for the #'s here, and it's easy to get these: www.worldcat.org/isbn/#########. Worldcat is your friend :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

All of the refs have either an OCLC or ISBN. I've not routinely been adding publication locations since (some time ago) I didn't think they were displayed; I may have just done it wrong. I will take care of this in due course. Magic♪piano 13:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• General Comments

In general, the article looks great. But I think it could use a copyediting round and a few small-to-moderate changes. There are a number of times when I think a little too much information was crammed into unnecessarily complex sentences. These could be simplified and broken apart into multiple sentences with events placed in chronological order. For example, the only casualties of the operation are mentioned in this sentence: "Allen, after penning a message for the merchant to deliver to the citizens of Montreal, returned to Ticonderoga on the 21st, having left Saint-Jean just as the British forces arrived, and having lost three men in skirmishes." The fact that Arnold spent his own money to capture the fort is in this sentence: "When they arrived on June 22 and made it clear to Arnold that he was to serve under Hinman, he, after considering for two days, disbanded his command, resigned his commission, and went home, having spent more than £1,000 of his own money in the effort to capture the fort." Specific comments are below. Flying Jazz (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a bad habit of making sentences long and complicated, something I'm trying to stop, if only I could find the period key, which sometimes seems harder than it should be. Fixed, I hope.

• Intro Comments

• The consequences of the action are discussed in two places: in the final sentence of the first paragraph and again at the end of the first sentence of the third paragraph. Are tactical consequences separated from strategic ones? Consider placing all the important consequences at the end of the first paragraph.
• In the third paragraph, the capture is described as a "relatively minor military action" of "significant strategic importance." On the surface, I don't think both can be true. Some clarification is needed about the term "minor" in this text or it should just be removed. The numbers of the forces involved speak for themselves.

Reply The action was minor in scale (small number of forces), but significant in effect. I'll try to find words to clarify this. Reworded

• I'd remove the phrase "bold effort." This doesn't seem NPOV.

Reply I'm open to suggestions. (In the MILHIST-A review, the word "risky" was rejected.) The effort clearly contained elements of daring and risk.

• Concluding the intro with the clash of personalities between Allen and Arnold and it's impact on historiography doesn't seem appropriate for the intro to a general purpose encyclopedia. I think most readers will come here for information about the capture itself, and the lead and the article itself should focus on and conclude on the main topic.

Reply Noted. See below for discussion on the relevant section.

• Infobox Comments

• The image shows Allen demanding surrender from a man and woman in nightclothes. Who are they supposed to be? The text says the fort commander emerged fully dressed. Is a better image or more accurate image available? If not, more info should be given so the reader knows who is supposedly pictured and knows it's inaccurate.

Reply Short answer, no. There are a fair number of depictions from the 19th century. I believe the New York Public Library's collection is the most extensive, but there are images in other online collections as well. Most of them are essentially inaccurate in their depiction of the event. Changed label

• Were the three casualties deaths or wounded? Were any seriously wounded?

Reply Good question. Some of my recent reading leads me to believe they may not have been casualties at all, merely left behind and forced to make their way back overland. Clarified and corrected

• Background

• The first two sentences jump from '75 to '58 to '63 and then back to '59. This probably doesn't have to be in perfect chronological order to get the point across, but it should jump around less.
• The fort was "not the important fortress it once was" but was "a valuable asset." On the surface, I don't think both can be true. Some clarification is needed or the "not the important fortress" statement should be removed and maybe replaced with the statement "more like a backwoods village than a fort."

Reply I'll work on these two. Reworded

• Capture of the Fort

• The sentence beginning "Frustrated, he retired to the captain's quarters..." seems to refer to Arnold, but only Allen and Delaplace were mentioned in the previous sentence.

Reply I'll work on this. Reworded

• The statement "the plan to strip the fort and send armaments to Boston was in peril." implies that this was someone's plan in May. The Fortification_of_Dorchester_Heights article says "After George Washington took command of the army outside Boston in July 1775, the idea of bringing the cannons from Ticonderoga to the siege was raised by Colonel Henry Knox....Knox went to Ticonderoga in November..." Was this plan discussed by Arnold and the Massachusetts Committee long before Washington arrived, but the specifics of the logistics were Knox's idea? Are you making a distinction between armaments and heavy cannon?

Reply The discussion with Arnold did not include any specific logistics for delivering the armaments (and I believe Arnold realized he was out of his depth in dealing with it himself). Knox did not get involved until after Washington arrived outside Boston. Added I've added words that clarify what Arnold was doing in the interval between the capture and is departure from the scene.

• Crown Point and the raid on Fort Saint-Jean

• "Arnold rechristened the schooner Liberty..." It would be good to have its original name.

Reply Unclear if she was formally named, but I will look through some of my sources. I can temporize by changing to "christened" if the name doesn't turn up. Original name added

• Aftermath

• The fort was "not at the time an important military post" but "its capture had several important results" and Lord Dartmouth wrote that its capture was "very unfortunate indeed." See comments above about the Background section and Intro where there seems to be an effort to present a dichotomy that either must be made more specific or be removed. Is there a strong opinion among historians that the British underestimated Ticonderoga's importance in 1775 while the colonists recognized its value? Did both sides recognize its importance in the French and Indian War but neither side thought it needed more resources to successfully defend or attack it? Did Dartmouth think it was a blunder that the fort had not been reinforced with more men after Lexington and Concord?

Reply This is something that probably deserves mention. Gage did in fact realize the importance of Ti, and sent instructions to Carleton to refortify the place (I believe after Lexington and Concord), but events overtook the message (Carleton got Gage's message on May 19). I don't know enough of the context around Darmouth's comment to know if he understood the implications. Added I've added words that I hope clarify the perceived importance.

• War of words between Allen and Arnold

• "Allen also wrote several versions of the events" may imply that the versions he wrote differed from one another in substantive ways. Did they?

Reply The differed, but I don't believe the differences were significant enough to detail. I only wanted to make clear that the writings delivered to the different bodies were not copies of the same thing.

• The selections chosen in the last paragraph seem POV to me. Even citing a published author's POV is tricky unless some balance is given. The statement: "[Allen] is an odd figure to be revered as a revolutionary hero." may apply in most of the United States, but is it odd for modern Vermonters to revere him as a revolutionary hero? Was Wilson writing for Vermonters or for other Americans? The final paragraph seems to unfairly pit Wilson, writing in 2001 with more sympathy to Arnold than to Allen, against Hall, writing in 1895 about Allen at a time when a book with sympathy toward Arnold might have been a foolish thing for a historian to write. Except for the first sentence, this final paragraph seems to detract more from the article than it adds. Especially the final couple sentences seem to just be a critique of Hall. I think some of the information could be included in a footnote, moved to the Benedict Arnold article or removed altogether. Any action that Arnold was involved in probably has a similar historiography. I'd consider shortening this section considerably and moving it to the Aftermath section as a subsection. The article should focus on the capture from beginning to end. Flying Jazz (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply I wasn't trying to put Hall and Wilson against each other. I was merely trying to illustrate that biases, introduced by the actors, were traceable into the histories. Arnold and Allen are both difficult subjects to write about. Some reading of mine only in the last week is causing me to rethink my appraisal of Allen with respect to this section; there seem to be credible assertions that Allen's discussions with the British skirted treason. Removed I've removed the last paragraph; I don't really buy the premise by which I constructed it anymore.

Thank you for your detailed comments; they've been a big help. I'll try to address them in the next few days. Magic♪piano 23:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I've addressed most of the factual issues; let me know otherwise. I'll have a look at the prose tomorrow. Magic♪piano 15:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Prose hopefully improved. Magic♪piano 15:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Image review File:GreenMtBoys.jpg - I'm a bit unclear about the permissions for this. The image description says "photo by Amber Kinkaid used with permission" - where was this permission granted? Is the uploader actually Amber Kinkaid? Awadewit (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Beats me. The original uploader appears to be a somewhat infrequent contributor; I'll leave a message on his/her/its talk page. If this attribution is not cleared up in a timely manner, I can substitute this image, which I don't like quite as much. (There are no obvious search results leading to further information.) Magic♪piano 13:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If I don't get an answer from the image uploader by about Thursday, I will pull the image. Magic♪piano 17:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully someday you will get a response - the original image is so much better. All image issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral—1a. There are still opportunities to tighten the wording. Examples from the first few paras:
• I recommend pluralizing "cannon" to "cannons"; although both are correct, the extra "s" may avoid confusion for some of our younger and/or non-native readers.
  • "Hangers-on"—it's grammatically correct, but perhaps you could use a different word? It just seems awkward to me for some reason.
  • "Cannon and other armaments captured at the fort were subsequently hauled away and used to fortify Dorchester Heights and break the stalemate at the siege of Boston." Opportunities to tighten this sentence: "captured at the fort" "subsequently hauled away" come to mind. Perhaps something along the lines of "Cannon and other captured armaments were used to fortify...."
  • "In a bold effort on May 18, Arnold and 50 men raided Fort Saint-Jean". A very nitpicky comment: you can ax "in a bold effort" and replace it with a "boldly" before "raided". It's trivial and debatable either way.
  • As User:Tony1 always points out, "While the scope..." should be "Although the scope..."
  • In the last sentence, "...for the actions taken" seems redundant.
  • The pacing and content of the lead is great, but the entire article needs a couple quick passes to ensure optimal quality. Great work! — Deckiller 04:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering when someone was going to bring up 1a... I'll go through it a few more times over the next couple of days to see if I can tighten things up some more. Thanks for your feedback. Magic♪piano 17:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Great. It's definitely not bad, though you may want to get another outside editor to help perform a final proofread. I also like how the lead summarizes the article without going into exhaustive detail like other FA leads. — Deckiller 17:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Query Hi Magic, that was an interesting read, but re "a number of cannons and massive artillery", in that era did artillery other than cannon exist? ϢereSpielChequers 17:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Period artillery also included howitzers and mortars. According to Henry Knox's records of what he hauled away, all of those were found at Ti. Magic♪piano 18:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't know that. ϢereSpielChequers 19:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Looks better—I'll support after a third-party user goes through the article. — Deckiller 03:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Support with proviso that I now have a very small interest following my copyedit. Comments - I've just completed a minor copyedit of this excellent article but, to be honest, I found the prose generally very clear and engaging. I do have a couple of suggestions/queries, however:

• Lead: I think we use the word 'capture' too often. I'm sure we could substitute 'took' or something else in one or two places - however in this case prefer the nominator to consider/alter rather than do it myself.
• Colonial forces assemble: Riding furiously northward (his horse was destroyed) - if he's riding, clearly he has a horse - are we saying his own mount had been destroyed and he was riding another one?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on the use of "capture", I'll tune. As to the horse, perhaps it should read that the horse was subsequently destroyed. Thanks for the look! Magic♪piano 15:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, glad I asked about the horse, since clearly I had completely the wrong idea (it has been a long day, so I'll take some responsibility for that as well)...! Anyway, having been through it I see no reason not to support this for FA - well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 19:29, 14 April 2009 [13].

---

Nassau class battleship

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote and greatly expanded this article over the past month or so. It recently passed MILHIST ACR, and I feel it's at or close to FA. I appreciate any and all comments towards improving the article. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Image review: All images (4) seem to be appropriately licensed. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 19:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Technical Review -- Disambiguation and external links (respective links checker tools), and the ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS script) of the article all check out fine.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Caliber numbers for the guns in the infobox?
  • Underwater protection figures for the infobox?
  • "As designed, the ships did not handle particularly well, even in calm seas, and their motion was quite stiff. "
    • "Stiff"?
  • "Bilge keels were later added, which helped to improve the rolling problem. However, they were maneuverable and had a small turning radius."
    • Does "they" refer to "the class"?
  • "At approximately the same time, Posen accidentally rammed the light cruiser Elbing and holed her below the waterline. Elbing was damaged so severely that her engine room was completely flooded and she was unable to move; the captain of the ship ordered Elbing be scuttled to prevent her capture by the British.[18]"
    • What do Posen and Elbing have to do with the Nassau class? :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I added the gun calibers and the torpedo bulkhead to the infobox; there isn't a field for double bottom percentage/watertight compartments or anything like that, is there?

Nevermind, I added the figures to the "Notes" field in the infobox. I guess that's as good a place as any.

"Stiff" is how Gröner's German Warships: 1815–1945 describes them As a non-sailor, I don't know exactly what that means.

Yes, the "they" refers to the class, not the bilge keels. I'll fix that misplaced modifier.

Well, Posen was the 4th member of the Nassau class, so... :)

Thanks for your comments! Parsecboy (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks alright :)

Hmm. You could try asking FTC Gerry (talk · contribs) or BB35 Restorer (talk · contribs); I'm not sure if they would know, but it'd be your best bet. :/

Ok.

*facepalm*... Cheers Parsec! :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 13:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I dropped a line at FTC Gerry's talk page, maybe he can help us out with this. Parsecboy (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - MoS compliance may require attention; see here as an example. –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 01:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Julian, what did you do in that diff? I honestly can't tell, even with the edit summary. :/ —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "31 May–1 June 1916" → "31 May – 1 June 1916" (notice the spacing). –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 02:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah, apologies. I hate how hard it is to see spacing changes in diffs. Thanks and cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Ed, for taking care of that. I checked through the article for other endashes that have the same problem, but I think (and this is just my understanding of MOS:DASH) that the only one that needed spaces was the one you pointed out (31 May – 1 June). Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Missing categories for started and end of service? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you be a little more specific, please? I checked Iowa class battleship (the first ship class FA that comes to mind) and it has the basically just the same categories that this one does. Do you mean something like, say, Category:Ship classes that entered service in 1909/Category:Ship classes that were removed from service in 1920? Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite, although I was thinking in terms of individuals ships, not classes (likely, both types of categories are needed). Interesting. This indicates to me a greater failing among ship articles category system (Category:Ships) in general - they should be categorized with the naval equivalents of year of establishment/disestablishment (Category:Establishments by year). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll bring that up at WP:SHIPS and see how the project wants to set up that category system. Parsecboy (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a discussion at WT:SHIPS that looks like we're going to create a category tree along the lines of Category:20th century ships --> Category:1900s ships --> Category:1901 ships. Once this is implemented, they'll be added to the article. Parsecboy :  Chat  15:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear that! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support I was a little concerned about the length of the article at first, but after a look see the length fora ship class in service for such a short time seems appropriate. One question though: did the ships mount any type of electronic equipment? I know that it is too earlier for radar, but what about signal detection equipment or a military radio. I will not hold this against you, I am merely curious if you found any info on this matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, I haven't yet found anything about electronic equipment/rangefinders/etc, although I'm sure they mounted at least some time of optical rangefinder. Gröner's German Warships: 1815–1945 is the best technical reference I've yet come across, but it doesn't mention anything about the issue. Neither does Conway's, but I wouldn't expect it to, really. I'll keep digging (I'm away from home, and only brought a couple of books with me) and see what I can turn up. Parsecboy (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just to follow up, I haven't been able to find anything about electronic equipment/rangefinders/etc. in any of my books, or on Google books. Short of archival documents, it doesn't look like the information exists. Parsecboy (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment "Stiffness" related to the vessel's roll characteristics, and is influenced by metacentric height. I believe this characteristic was common to German capital ships of the period. Kablammo (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please audit your use of "however"; in two places it appears twice in close succession. Use it only when necessary, and where contradiction is indicated. Consider using "although", "though", or "but" instead. Kablammo (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Proofread the article for other repetitions. "All four ships" appears three times in the second paragraph of the introduction. Kablammo (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I cut out most of the "however"s and fixed the "all four ships" repetition in the intro. Parsecboy (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I will add some substantive comments on design to article talk page. Kablammo (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've incorporated that information into the article, thanks for helping do some research! Parsecboy (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support I've done a bunch of MOS cleanup and a little copyediting just now; overall this is in good shape. A few minor remaining issues:

1. I left an inline comment in the lead, regarding a snaky sentence that isn't cohesive and needs to be split.
2. I understand why you used bolding in the infobox, but I really dislike it—looks icky, and lends weight to the 'wrong' information. I think the real problem is too much information in the infobox. I understand (believe me) the compulsion to not 'lose' any pieces of data, but if the data is not even mentioned in the text (like the range at four speeds, the complement figures as flagship, etc), then it probably doesn't belong in a summary, right? Another item I wouldn't detail there is the boats: a simple '10' would suffice in the infobox.
3. Using {{Commonscat-inline}} inside the {{refbegin}} tag makes the Commonscat link look like a reference. Why not use the {{Commonscat}} box?

Maralia (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed the line in the intro you pointed out, and cleaned up the infobox a bit. I had tried the bolding as a sort of experiment, and I wasn't really sure how I felt about it. I think it's better without. I changed the Commons link to the standard one; I'm not really sure where that came from, but I usually don't mess with those. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Image review (Part 2) Oppose based on criteron 3 File:SMS Westfalen LOC 25466u.jpg - We have to prove that this image is in the PD - "no known restrictions" is not sufficient. What reason do you have to believe that this is in the PD? Awadewit (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is that insufficient? It's in the George Bain collection, which is generally held to be PD, unless otherwise noted. Parsecboy (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

1) Images must prove their public domain status - that is part of the policy, particularly at Commons, where this image is hosted - "no known restrictions" is not the same as being in the public domain. 2) The description of the Bain collection says "The bulk of the collection dates from the 1900s to the mid-1920s, but scattered images can be found as early as the 1860s and as late as the 1930s." - Anything published after 1923 would still fall under copyright and we would have to establish that the owner had been dead for over 70 years or some other method if we wanted to claim that it was in the PD. Thus, we need to know the details about this image. First and foremost, when was it published? Awadewit (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So it isn't PD, per say...but...

2. The image is from a late 19th or early 20th century collection for which there is no evidence of any rights holder:

• There are no copyright markings or other indications on the images to indicate that they were copyrighted or otherwise restricted, AND
• The records of the U.S. Copyright Office do not indicate any copyright registration, AND
• The acquisition paperwork for the collection does not contain any evidence of any restrictions, AND
• Images from the collection have been used and published extensively without anyone stepping forward to claim rights.

These facts do not mean the image is in the public domain, but do indicate that no evidence has been found to show that restrictions apply.

— LOC

Commons requirements are more stringent than the LOC's - Commons requires that images prove that they are in the PD. Awadewit (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it would be harder to do a more in-depth look than the LOC would do. "No known restrictions" sounds like this passes the "acceptable copyright status" requirement of FA criterion #3. Also, why would Commons have a {{PD-Bain}} template if the images aren't allowed on there? I think that you might be going a bit overboard here...no offense... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The LOC doesn't necessarily do a lot of work. Moreover, I must reiterate that "no known restrictions" means nothing when it comes to copyright. It proves nothing. Finally, templates can be created by anyone on Commons - even incorrect and irrelevant templates can be created. This one does not prove that the image is in the public domain. My demands are not unreasonable - they are necessary. I am now adding an "oppose" to this comment. I have explained what needs to be done. At this point, either more information needs to be provided to demonstrate the image's PD status or the image needs to be removed. Awadewit (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the image. Parsecboy (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I brought this up on Commons here; Carl Lindberg states that "No known restrictions" is LoC-speak for public domain (it just reflects the fact that copyright and other law is extremely complex and it is impossible to predict future court decisions which may unexpectedly create new rights). The Library of Congress purchased the Bain collection (and thus the copyrights) in 1948 and placed them in the public domain, so it does not matter when the photographs were made or if they were published...The LoC only is putting up the photos where they own the negative (i.e. proving that it was authored and owned by the Bain company) rather than any of their prints. The Westfalen is indeed one of the glass negatives, so it should be perfectly fine for use. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That is incorrect. If a photo is known to be in the PD, the LOC says so - "no known restrictions" is their way of getting around not knowing for sure whether or not something is in the PD. In their own definition of "no known restrictions", the LOC says "These facts do not mean the image is in the public domain, but do indicate that no evidence has been found to show that restrictions apply." (emphasis added) Moreover, the LoC cannot "place" anything into the PD. Finally, if you read the entire rights statement on the LoC, you will see that they say it is up to users to determine whether or not it is acceptable to use an image or not - "In all cases, it is the researcher's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or otherwise distributing materials found in the Library's collections." The LoC defers all copyright decisions. Awadewit (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I will firmly stand by my statement ;-) The LoC never says "public domain" on any image description page I have ever seen; they always use the "no known restrictions" terminology. For example here (an item published in the 1600s), here (U.S. federal government photograph), or here (images which the author explicitly placed in the public domain as part of the gift). Other than international concerns, since they are guided by U.S. law only, the Library of Congress is probably more careful about copyright than almost anyone else (probably including Commons). It is just with looooooong experience, it is impossible to tell when something will come out of left field, like a descendent or ex-partner suddenly claiming rights when it was felt the original donor had owned them completely, or a court decision which changes the landscape, or other items like that. They use "public domain" on rights pages sometimes if they are clearly published before 1923 or the donor uses that wording; otherwise I barely ever see it. While the LoC does not own the copyright most of their works, they do obtain special collections from time to time, and individual collections can have terms from a donor, or can be purchased (along with copyright) outright. Prior to 1978 (when the 1976 Copyright Act came into effect), most case law indicated that unless a contract specified otherwise, copyright was transferred if negatives were sold. (Congress completely changed that; transfers since 1978 require a signed document in writing, so it is now possible to sell a negative but not the copyright). The LoC would most certainly have mentioned that in their collection documentation, but they obviously believe they acquired the copyright, which has probably lapsed anyways (the sale probably would have meant they were "published" in 1948 if they had not been already, so renewal was required in 1975/6) at the latest. Commons has a specific commons:Template:PD-Bain tag for this collection to indicate that they may be PD for reasons other than normal U.S. rules; images from there have always met Commons requirements. In fact, it is one of the two collections (the other being federal government works) the LoC is putting on Flickr commons; they are probably as sure about their copyright status as any other in their collection. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

<--The thing I don't understand, though, is that the Bain Collection was sold to the LoC; doesn't this mean that they therefore also sold the copyrights for the photographs they created themselves to the LoC? What I'm saying is, the Bain News Service created the photograph. They held the copyright until it was sold to the LoC. How is its use still restricted, if the LoC is not claiming any copyright? Parsecboy (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment I can't believe the issue surrounding this image is taking up a third of the entire FAC nomination. Honestly, Awadewit, this is much ado about nothing. The LoC always uses the phrase "No known restrictions on publication", even for images which are proven to be in the public domain. For instance, photographs in the G. Eric and Edith Matson Photograph Collection are known to be in the public domain, yet the phrase "No known restrictions on publication" is still used on their description page. The same wording is used for photos of US presidents and first ladies, even though these are clearly PD due to the fact that they're works of the US government. It's just standard LoC vocabulary. You say that "the LOC doesn't necessarily do a lot of work." I don't want to make any personal attacks, but for someone who isn't even a lawyer to be so dismissive towards LoC is quite immodest. If there's anyone in the US who knows anything about copyright, it's clearly the Library of Congress, since the United States Copyright Office itself is a part of LoC. When professionals at LoC say that there are no known restrictions on publication, it means that even though they might not be 100% sure of PD status, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will ever come and sue you for using them. As for the assertion that "templates can be created by anyone on Commons - even incorrect and irrelevant templates can be created", it is true. However, you cannot say this about PD-Bain. This template has existed for over two years, it is protected (which indicates wide consensus for its continued existence) and is used by 1,758 images as of today. Not exactly what I would call an "incorrect and irrelevant template". I agree with you that "Commons requirements [may be] more stringent than the LOC". However, the "No known restrictions on publication" notice has always been widely accepted on Commons, and there are tens of thousands of images from LoC which are hosted on Commons based on this sole assertion by LoC. I don't know of a single instance where an image was deleted because the "No known restrictions on publication" notice was deemed an insufficient indication of copyright status. If you think this should be changed and that all of these images should be deleted because they fail to prove that they are PD, then you are perfectly allowed to make such a proposal on the Commons Village Pump, although I doubt it will get a single support vote. However, this FAC is clearly not the place for disputing Commons practices, and opposing this FAC solely for the inclusion of this image is disproportionate. I'm sorry for the somewhat harsh language, and this is in no way intended as a personal attack. However, I find it quite disheartening when people become so obsessive about what is really a non-issue. Best regards. --BomBom (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my oppose. I am not going to repeat myself. I have explained my reasons, which are entirely legitimate. (By the way, if you want to know why so few FA reviewers are willing to look at images, this exchange is a perfect example of the treatment that drives reviewers away.) Awadewit (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Awadewit, my sincere apologies...we aren't meaning to hassle you...It's just that, in good faith, Parsec and I disagree and believe that the image can be used. Again, apologies, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

For my part, I simply don't understand your objection. Bain News Service held the copyright; they sold it to the LoC. How is it still in copyright if the LoC is not claiming to hold a current copyright? Parsecboy (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

They did not sell the copyright - the sold the photos themselves as well as some negatives. This does not mean copyright was transferred. You are mixing up owning the object itself with owning the copyright or intellectual property. Think of it this way, when a library owns a book or manuscript, that does not mean they own the copyright to that book or manuscript. Copyright is independent of ownership of the object itself. Awadewit (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If they didn't sell the copyright, then they didn't sell the photographs. They merely licensed them (for example, the reason one cannot freely copy and redistribute music; it wasn't sold in the legal sense, it was licensed for personal use). Parsecboy (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have asked two Commons admins to comment here. Hopefully they will. Awadewit (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Actually the Library of Congress provides more specific information regarding certain collections within its Prints and Photographs division, and the George Grantham Bain collection is one of them. See "About the George Grantham Bain Collection"[14] and "George Grantham Bain Collection: Rights and Restrictions Information".[15] I see no objection against designating this image with the standard Bain collection PD template. Durova^Charge! 21:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Image issue resolved Apparently, one minute of research would have resolved this issue. The ship was scrapped in 1924, therefore it is extremely likely that the image is from 1923 or before. I have added this information to the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

  Think of all the minutes you could have saved (not to mention goodwill) if you had done that minute of research on the front-end. --mav (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Since when did "extremely likely" constitute proof? I say this with a deep sense of irony and a growing loathing of wikilawyering. Dhatfield (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Weak oppose I'd like to see an inline cite after each sentence that has a date or number. If that is fixed, I'll change to support. --mav (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, that's not necessary. Every line is sourced to the citation at the end of the paragraph. If portions of a paragraph are not sourced to the ending citation, there are the appropriate citations where they need to be. Parsecboy (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I used to do that myself but did at least mention "for the whole paragraph" in the inline cite. But then, each para ideally should be sourced from more than publication and if it isn't now, somebody else will add a sentence in these para that is from another source, which will confuse things either way. I've had to add more inline cites during FARs of many early FAs I worked on that tried to get away with one inline cite per paragraph. It is just not sufficient, IMO. --mav (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, there really aren't that many English sources for this information (and my German isn't nearly good enough to look through German sources), so everything more or less has to come from the handful of sources that do exist. It just seems a little extreme to me to have 20-odd citations to "Gröner, p. 23" when 5 or so would do. Parsecboy (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed here. I've never had, and can't see, a problem with having one cite at the end of a paragraph if it is all from one source. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 19:29, 14 April 2009 [16].

---

Design 1047 battlecruiser

Nominator(s): —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A class of Dutch battlecruisers that were intended to be the backbone of the naval defense of the East Indies. The problem was that the Netherlands were invaded by Germany just as the design was finally finalized... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support Read through it the other day, did not see anything that would be a problem here. Well done, ed. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Commments - starting right from the top

• Infobox and Lead
  • Any idea what the ship's range would have been?
    • None, and I don't know why it isn't mentioned. Either they hadn't gotten far enough to calculate fuel efficiency, or it is an oversight; either way...
      • EDIT: the preliminary requirements for the ships included a 4500 nm endurance @ 20 knots, but I don't see this followed up upon in the subsequent designs given by Noot. the_ed17 :  Chat  15:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The "had they gone into service" under "Operators" is too long, could it be replaced with "planned" or "intended"?
    • Yes. :P
  • intended class of battlecruisers built for the Netherlands, but the Second World War interrupted the plans before the ships were laid down.. in the opening sentence of the lead seems far too abrupt, could that somehow be rearranged?
    • Done.
  • After a recommendation from Dutch admirals..., which Dutch admirals, do we know?
    • No, Noot only says this: "In 1938, a committee of high-ranking naval officers was appointed to investigate various possibilities of strengthening the naval forces of the Netherlands".

Ok. Cam ^(Chat) 05:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So, how do you know they were admirals ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I used "admiral" as a general term; all flag officers are a type of admiral, I believe (i.e. rear admiral, vice admiral, etc.). I can change this if need be though. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Na, you have a point—assumptions are bad! I've reworded this. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• • The lead never actually mentions the invasion of the Netherlands. That needs to be in there somewhere.
    • What are you asking here?
• Background
  • Other than the obvious colonial pride, could you briefly go into the justifications for the defense of the East Indies (ie the resources)?
    • I believe that I have addressed this. the_ed17 :  Chat  15:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You mention several times the number of forty for Japan's cruiser force. Do you know the approximate split of heavy/light for these?
    • I can go back and count the numbers in Conway's ;)
      • I believe this is fixed? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Other than that, good section.
• Preliminary Design
  • The opening of the "design" seems way too choppy. Could this be remedied at all? I'll go through later and see what I can do.
  • what year was De Rutyer built?
    • Launched in '35...
  • Do we know what the reasons for The Dutch's shift to Germany were? Did France indicate a hostility to the release of the designs or anything?
    • No, the French were only given a passing mention in Noot.
  • What attracted the Dutch to the Schanhorst design as opposed to the Deutchland or Admiral Scheer designs?
    • The latter two designs would not had enough armor or hitting power for them, I think.
  • Other than that, excellent well-reffed section.
• Design Studies
  • What is the fundamental difference between a battlecruiser and an Armoured Cruiser? (I know you and I know this, but the average reader won't, and is likely too lazy to draw up both pages and compare them).
    • I'm questioning my own writing here...I know that Noot called the alternate design one "of the armored cruiser type" on page 258, but who in their right mind would have built an armored cruiser in 1939? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • However, even though these vessels would be superior to any 20 cm (8 in)-gunned 10,000 ton treaty cruiser, it was felt that too much would be sacrificed if a smaller ship like this was adopted: if the armor was kept the same as the battlecruiser, no armament could be fitted. With the protection specified above, it was judged inadequate is an extraordinarily long sentence; could it be broken up into several smaller ones?
    • Done. Still need to explain armored vs. battle cruiser though.
  • and the plan was trashed.., the use of "trashed" seems way too informal.
    • Fixed.
  • nd the older ships would then take the role of gunnery training ships from grossly obsolete ships like as the protected cruiser De Gelderland. what is "like as the", shouldn't it be "such as the"?
    • Fixed.
  • The visit compelled the designers to dump the previously-required central longitudinal bulkhead. Again, "dump" is way too informal.
    • Fixed.
• Final Design
  • No issues
• Armament
  • Since you've listed the projectile weight, velocity of projectile, gun weight and various other factors, could you also list the rate of fire of the main-guns, as well as the secondary guns?
    • Main armament yes, secondary no. No one knows exactly which version of the 120mm gun would have been used, and the numbers for the two I give would be wrong—the 1924 gun would have been updated and the "modern gun" was put into service in 1950 after incorporating improvements learned from WWII. the_ed17 :  Chat  16:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • In paragraph 1, you say seven 20mm cannons. In paragraph 3, it says eight 20mm cannons. Which one is correct?
    • Fixed.
  • The 40 mm gun was arguably the best light anti-aircraft gun of the Second World War needs a citation.
    • The ref is DiGuilian. Would you just like an extra ref added?

Sure. Cam ^(Chat) 05:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Done now. :) the_ed17 :  Chat  15:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Could the last paragraph on the 20mm simply be amalgamated into the paragraph on the 40mm, since both were considered the ship's light-AA guns?
    • Done.
• Differences from the Schanhorst class
  • as its armor could stop 8-inch shells from heavy cruisers but nothing more. Could "whereas the Schanhorst class's armour could stop x-inch shells" be added to the end?
    • If I had a statement saying that, sure...hmmm. I could compare the amount of belt armor instead... (9" vs. 13.something") the_ed17 :  Chat  15:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Other than that, good little comparison section.
• Fate
  • Paragraphs 1 and 2 contradict themselves. While the one author may maintain that they could have altered the face of the war in the East Indies, the fact that four Kongo-class battleships were armed with 8x14", and would have just ripped through the three Dutch cruisers.
    • Hmm, good point. Never made this connection before. Will look at tomorrow.
    • Yeeeah, the Kongo's one-on-one would have probably had them for breakfast if the carriers hadn't gotten to them first. I removed that offending sentence. the_ed17 :  Chat  16:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the second paragraph mention the Battle of the Java Sea, as this was an important event in the invasion of the East Indies?
    • Take a look at this too. Should I integrate a little of that back to here?

Sure. Cam ^(Chat) 05:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't think of a satisfactory way to add any back in without going through an entire history again, so I just added a little to a sentence mentioning the battle. the_ed17 :  Chat  16:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Other
  • Could the "Notes" be split into two columns?
    • Done; although I normally hate two-column "Notes", this needed it. :-)
  • The article could benefit from a light copyedit.

Superb job on an obscure topic that would have taken significant delving and digging, I salute you! Cam ^(Chat) 04:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • I had to wait two weeks for Noot. :) I'll address the rest of your concerns tomorrow or Thursday (tomorrow is my busy day of the week with classes and closing at work). the_ed17 :  Chat  05:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks! the_ed17 :  Chat  15:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The "Fair Use" claim for the lead image needs to be examined. While important to the article, it is a work of art, not a photograph of a no-longer-extant vessel. Consequently it likely is not irreplaceable; it is an artist's conception of what the vessel would look like, not a photograph. A copyright specialist should look at the fair use rationale in light of the nature of the image. Kablammo (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Other points:
    • "the size of the 280 mm (11 in) guns, used because Hitler did not want to put the British on guard, rendered them inferior to of British, French and American battleships as their guns were much smaller than the 14, 15 and 16 inch (36–38–41 cm) guns of those countries." Missing a word, and clarify what "them" refers to (vessel or guns).
    • "Although they discussed the issues that had with propulsion, the Dutch came away from Italy entirely uninspired by their efforts." I suspect "they" and "them" refer to different parties; needs clarification.
    • I've noticed a few other instances of ambiguous pronouns, but I'm signing off now. Kablammo (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  Hmm. Never thought of it like that before (I just thought that it would be irreplaceable and therefore justified fair-use); thanks for asking about this. I don't know if it will help, but I found an extremely similar image of Scharnhorst about a week ago...see File:Bundesarchiv DVM 10 Bild-23-63-12, Schlachtschiff "Scharnhorst".jpg. I think that the artist modified this pic by flipping/cropping it, removing the aircraft and second mast and adding a second funnel; note the similar angle of the guns (front two flat, back one elevated). So three questions: A) as a derivative work, would this fall into a free category? B) is the picture not valuable if it's just a modification? C) Could a detailed line drawing like the one seen here in Conway's be used as fair use (non-replaceable because the ships were never built)? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  • • I see there's a fair use claim for artwork on USS Kentucky (BB-66). At SMS Von der Tann there's an image by home-grown (Wikipedia) talent; I have seen another editor (whose name escapes me now) who has done similar drawings. That may be an avenue worth exploring. (It my be difficult to walk the line between a derivative work and original research, but as the class design was similar to Scharnhorst, using that for a starting point would be appropriate.) Kablammo (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I think that we should wait for Stifle's opinion, but wouldn't keeping this artwork with {{rk}} be alright? I know that Anynobody and Alexpl at Commons and Colosseum here all make beautiful drawings, but I can't imagine that a drawing of a ship would take less than two weeks, and I also think that they have long to-do lists of stuff they want to do. :-) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 15:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree we should wait for Stifle's opinion. (And Colosseum was the artist I was thinking of.) The absence of the image should not affect this FAC. I honestly don't know the answer as to whether it can be kept. I doubt it, but claim no specific expertise. Kablammo (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

          Sorry folks, was on vacation.

          I don't think the image is reasonably replaceable, but it does fail another of the NFCC, #10a, as the copyright holder is not identified. Tagged accordingly. Stifle (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

          I have uploaded a new image over that one. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments

• Fix the 6 disambiguation links found with the finder tool in the toolbox at the right.

• 1 still remains. --Best, TRUCO 22:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• External links appear fine with the checker tool.
• The ref Morison (1948), p. 280 is duplicated and appears more than once in the ref section, a ref name should be used instead.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• • All of these should be addressed. Thanks, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    • • Apologies; they are gone now. Also, you may want to click your link to WP:DABS and see were it goes. :P —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Wow, thanks for catching that.--Best, TRUCO 22:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose until fixed. Taken time off that poll to come to this oasis. I like aspects of this, but the writing needs a clean-up. Redundancy is an issue. Try these exercises.
• End of first para, "could" is uncomfortable. What about "was intended to" or "would be able to"? Otherwise, we wonder whether it's WP's voice or a statement of the intentions back then.
• Spot the redundant word: "After a recommendation from Dutch admirals saying that the Koninklijke Marine should be bolstered so any attacker would ..." (saying ... but you might consider also removing "should"—the sentence is precariously long, and this might help a little).
• "but as they had never designed any sort of modern capital ship (the design of the projected battleships of 1913 having been from foreign shipbuilders), the plans did not reflect any of the advances in warship design that had come about after the First World War, and in particular the armor protection was totally outmoded." Redundancies, I'm afraid. "designed a modern capital ship" ... "reflect advances in warship design since the ...". Semicolon, not "and" ... "... War; in particular, the armor ...".
• "Due to the chaotic situation that was Europe in the Second World War,". Sorry, this thematic equative is laboured in this context ... almost from a bad poem. "... chaotic situation in Europe during the ...".
• Needing ... needed. Close repetition, and the second one is most unidiomatic (required/necessary).

These are a few random examples from the top. Can you find someone to go through the whole text? Tony (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Tony (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Thank you Tony. I may hate it when my crappy prose errors get pointed out, but they are a problem. I'll go through it a bit myself, and I will try to get someone to go through this. I had Maralia (talk · contribs) in mind for a few seconds, but she's overloaded as it is and I don't want to add on more; I'll see if I can find someone else. Thanks again! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Excellent article which meets the FA criteria. The level of detail on this abortive project is remarkable and I found it to be a good read. My only suggestion is that the 'aircraft' fields in the infobox should probably be populated with whatever the final allocation of aircraft and operating facilities was planned to be. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Superb article which, imho, meets the FA criteria. Great detail, and no flaws as far as I can see. Definite support -UIS ^{Editor Review} 05:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Image review as follows:

• File:Hr. Ms. De Ruyter (1936).jpg: link is gone, webarchived links do not work. Please update the link. Should it not use Commons:Template:PD-NL-Gov? (removed)
• File:Hr.Ms. De Zeven Provinciën (pantserschip).jpg: same as above. getting OTRS to confirm all images on the Navy site are public domain.
• File:Hr. Ms. Tromp 1936.jpg: hopefully, awaiting the OTRS.
• File:De Ruyter (C801).jpg: same as above. Date of photo? Should it not use {{PD-NetherlandsGov}}? (removed)
• File:De Ruyter during trials.jpg: this is not likely by the Royal Netherlands Navy. Conway credits each picture, and some pictures are uncredited (whether they are PD-UK or unknown authorship escapes me, Conway has credited pictures to "MoD" and "author's collection"). Prime example, on page 8, there is a column of 3 pictures; the top two are individually credited, even though they are from the same source. The bottom image of the column is uncredited. Jappalang (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC) (removed)
  • Oh, you're kidding lol...(no, I did not check the links before adding the photos). This gives a different image for the first De Ruyter (and not nearly as good of an image...) and no image for the second. This covers the second image and gives me a different image that I can use for the third. And yes, I think that they should use that template. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 13:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • 2nd image fixed, 3rd image replaced...I stink at trying to find copyright status though. Would it be too much if I asked for you to go hunting for five minutes for the first image? The alternative is this image, which is of much less benefit to the reader IMO becuase of how far the ship is away from the camera. Obviously if I have to I will switch it, but...yeah. Thanks, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 15:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Per Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches#Common misconceptions, is there a page on the Dutch military website that specifically states the images hosted are in public domain or free for use? I do not understand Dutch; hence I have to ask you (I presume you understand the language) to go through the Dutch site to locate the information needed to verify these images. Jappalang (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I actually don't; Google Translate is a beautiful tool. :) Thank you for the link, though...I did assume that they would be PD without actually checking. I don't see anything, but I will email them and wait for a response. With thanks, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
          • For the De Ruyter that was sunk in the Battle of Java Sea, how about this 1942 Australian photo? Jappalang (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
            • I think that I am going to use this one from Conway's, as it is even more clearer and the source is the Netherlands Navy (below the second pic). Thanks for the help though!
              • See above. Jappalang (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
            • I just got an email back from the navy stating that "All of the pictures on www.defensie.nl ( the official website of the Dutch Ministry of Defence) may be used in the public domain, as long as the source is mentioned (bron: Ministerie van Defensie/source: Dutch Ministry of Defence)." Should I send this on to OTRS? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
              • I think it would be good for the projects if that email was passed to OTRS; it will stop further questionings on this front. Jappalang (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
              • You might want to get started on the OTRS for the Dutch Navy site and tagged their images with {{OTRS pending}}. Jappalang (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• File:Design 1047 battlecruiser.jpg: in response to the points brought up earlier in this FAC, no, we do not use a work of unknown origin for fair use. Do not use this image if it was not published in a reliable source. As for the line drawing in Conway's book, I think it can qualify for fair use. Images of this theoretical ship by Wikipedia users would be running into the region of WP:OR. The ship or knowledge of its exact structure is not in existence; hence, creating it from one's guesses is an original thought that is not verified by reliable sources. Basing it off someone's idea would make it a derivative work. (A similar situation would be the Byzantine dromon in Byzantine Navy.)
  • Alright. Any admin, feel free to delete it; I'll work on scanning in a line drawing from Noot...the stats from Conway's indicate that they were using one of the older designs and so their drawing may not reflect the final design which I give stats for (although I'm sure that it is close and I will use it if I can't scan!). —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 13:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I've uploaded a line drawing from Noot. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: check out this search on Maritiem Digital. There are some contruction shots of the old De Ruyter, but they also have Royal Netherlands Navy photos of De Ruyter C801. There are permalinks for each image and searches (as demonstrated above). Quite a slow site for me though. Jappalang (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(@during trials pic) - tagged for speedy, my apologies for how much work I am making you do...

(@ site) - DUDE. That is the gold mine I was hoping would turn up somewhere. Thanks a lot! I'll be hunting through that for images; are all of them PD becuase they have been donated to the museums? For now, I'll try to keep to the official Navy ones... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Stick to the Navy ones. The private photos are copyrighted for 70 years past the author's death, and the corporate images 70 years after first legal publishing. Note that Maritiem displays images at the smallest size and you have to zoom in at higher levels for original sizes (too high a zoom and jagged edges appear). However, since they still display it through that small window (like certain online art galleries), you might have to do some patchwork to get the large size images. Jappalang (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Those windows are rather annoying; I'll see what I can do with my limited image-modifying skills. Thanks again, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What would the status of works by anonymous photographers be? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

For Netherlands, if the author's identity cannot be reasonably proven, the copyright of the work can be assumed to exist for 70 years past first publishing. Jappalang (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and about Maritiem's small windows? Forget about it... I just discovered that you can simply zoom in and right-click to save the zoomed image. It will be, on default, saved as a *.ashx file; just rename the file extension to *.jpg. Jappalang (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding this photo by an anonymous author; would it be in the public domain? There's a date of 1925 on it, but I don't believe that is a publishing date.

Yeah, I discovered that when I zoomed in and saved the first time. :-) Thanks again for the link! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 13:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the ship was commissioned in 1925, so a photo of it moored in Den Helder, the Dutch main naval base, in its first operational year (or before that) is not really unbelievable. For publishing, it is stated to be a postcard and these are generally printed almost immediately or a few years later (maybe a decade or so for anniversaries and special occasions); however, the museum has given a date and specifically stated postcard, so I think we can reasonably take it to be the publishing year of the image unless it can be proven otherwise. This postcard just manages to scrape in under the URAA 1996 date (an anonymous 1925 Dutch work falls into Dutch PD from 1 Jan 1996 onwards) to qualify for US PD as well). Hope the OTRS clears quickly, so we can close the image review. Jappalang (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(out) - alright, I added the image of Java. Would you be able to check the license I put on it? I'm pretty sure that it's right, but not 100%. Also, I swear that I am done adding images now. :-) Thank you for all of your help in sorting through these issues; to say that it has been invaluable would be an understatement. Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 15:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

File:HNLMS Java 1925.jpg checks out fine. Now we are just waiting for the OTRS to clear. Jappalang (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I got an OTRS about this (OTRS:2762019), but it didn't have the image filenames on it. I can't seem to spot which image it refers to here, though; can someone point it out? Stifle (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Hr.Ms. De Zeven Provinciën (pantserschip).jpg and File:Hr. Ms. Tromp 1936.jpg. Sorry! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 13:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

OTRS permission has been added. Regarding the {attribution} templates...do I have to atttribute them in the article itself? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There have been talk of this in other articles, and the concensus there seem to be as long as the image page attributes the source, it is okay (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tree Sparrow, regarding File:Tree of sparrows.jpg). Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - after hacking the prose around a bit, I'm quite happy with it :-). Shimgray | talk | 12:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Comprehensive and well written article. Ruslik (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. It appears to me that most, if not all, of the concerns listed above have been addressed. Excellent article. Cla68 (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 19:29, 14 April 2009 [17].

---

GRB 970508

Nominator(s): Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've successfully brought this article through a very rigorous GA review by the very vigorous Wronkiew. It is a very short article, but I believe it is sufficiently comprehensive without going into the absurdly technical details. There are no gamma-ray bursts which have been brought to FA yet (this is even the first GA, I believe), so I don't really have a reference point. Oh well. It's good to WP:BEBOLD, eh? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Technical Review

• Fix the disambiguation links, found with the links checker tool in the toolbox.
• External links check out fine with the links checker tool in the toolbox.
• Book refs that use multiple pages should be formatted as pp. not p.
• Other ref formatting checks out fine with the WP:REFTOOLS script.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Struck resolved issues. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - Oppose pending grammar improvements. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• this was the first measurement of the distance of a gamma-ray burst. - shouldn't that be the distance to a gamma-ray burst?
• Until this burst, astronomers were in disagreement over how far away GRBs were occurring. - tense - don't they still occur?
• Unambiguously - wouldn't 'unequivocally' be better?
• Dale Frail should be announced as an astronomer

• There are more instances of minor grammatical problems throughout the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the comments you've mentioned. Any other issues? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a read through the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "satellite registered a gamma-ray burst lasting approximately 15 seconds" - should be 'that lasted'

    Why? Doesn't sound wrong to me.

    Lasting - it's still happening. Lasted - it happened. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

  • "The burst also happened to occur within the field" - might be better read as 'also occurred within'

    Well, I wanted to emphasize that this doesn't always happen, but I suppose "happened to occur" is somewhat awkward.

  • "Dale Frail, an astronomer working with the National Radio Astronomy Observatory's Very Large Array, was contacted by Enrico Costa of the BeppoSAX team and began making observations at a wavelength of 20 centimeters within four hours of the burst's discovery." - it isn't perfectly clear who began to make observations here, and would it perhaps be better to say "within four hours....Dale Frail...."?

    Rewritten.

  • "Frail contacted Stanislav Djorgovski who began making observations with the Hale telescope several hours later. " - perhaps 'Djorgovski who several hours later began to make observations...'?

    Hrm, I see where the ambiguity arises, but your proposed change reads somewhat awkwardly.

  • "conducted a more extensive analysis of the data, but he was also unable to identify a new light source.[4]" - a new light source separate to GRB970508, or the same?

    Rewritten.

  • "Djorgovski collected observations of the region again" - should be 'djorgoovski again collected observations...'

    Done. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• • I think the article needs a pretty significant improvement to the quality of the grammar, but it otherwise looks ok to me. Until it sees a rewrite I think I'll have to oppose - but it the article is rewritten I'd happily change that view. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    Righty-o, I believe I've addressed each of your issues. I've tweaked the whole Observations section, so you'll want to have another look at that. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    You'd have to go right through the entire article. It would take me at least an hour to read the rest and make my observations and I don't have the time. Perhaps you should enlist the aid of a copyrighter - its an interesting article but the grammar is holding it back from FA. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    I don't mean to be rude, but if you don't have the time to give an article a critical read-through, what's the point of commenting at its FAC? I'll try to touch up the article where I can, but if it gets to the point where you're really only willing to say "The grammar is bad" without giving examples, I wouldn't really consider your oppose to be a reasonable one. You say it would take you an hour to make comments? So be it. Divide that hour into chunks of 2 minutes, if you must, and I will patiently work with you until you are satisfied. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    You're certainly not being rude :) I have read through it, but to list the grammatical improvements I'd like to see would take much more time than I have. I'm not a copyeditor but there are folk on Wikipedia who are, and it may be something that they're more inclined to do. I hope this doesn't dissuade you from working on it though, I know nothing about gamma ray bursts but I found it interesting all the same. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    At this point, it seems much of the text will be expanding/changing due to Ruslik's concerns. I believe the best course of action would be for me to concentrate on his concerns until he is satisfied, find a good objective copyeditor to run through the article, then notify you to revisit the article/FAC. Cheers! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• • I've read through again and corrected what I feel are the most obvious grammatical problems, but there are sections that as a layman I do not understand. I'm unconcerned with the technical units and terminology, but some aspects could use minor changes to make obvious what is being said:

• • In the lead, I think you might consider separating the explanation of what a GRB is from the observations made - so create a new paragraph after the 2nd sentence.

    Split into a new paragraph.

  • "GRB 970508 was also the first with an observed radio frequency afterglow." - first what? **:First burst.
  • "By analyzing the fluctuating strength of the radio signals," - is signals the correct word here - who is signalling who?

    I'm quite certain that radio signal is the correct term. "Radio signal" is a noun, not a verb.

  • "The first afterglow to be discovered was the X-ray afterglow of GRB 970228.[2] The afterglow was detected by BeppoSAX, an Italian–Dutch satellite originally designed to study X-rays" - the first GRB afterglow ever to be discovered? Or was this an afterglow discovered during observations of 970508? And was BeppoSAX used to discover the afterglow of 970228, or 970508? It isn't quite clear right now which discovered which.

    Tweaked it slightly.

  • I've just noticed that you've been busily reverting my edits, while I've been making them (and have not yet finished - at least allow one the opportunity to make changes and then proof-read his edits, to make further corrections). If you're not willing to allow one to help, I see no reason why one would continue to do so. Good luck. My oppose remains, not for this reason, but because the article is still confusing, and the grammar is demonstrably poor. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    The changes you made were mostly very bad. I'll assume that's because you aren't familiar with the technical language employed required by this kind of article. Don't take it personally. Keep in mind that my goal is here is not to insult you, nor is it to blindly accept your criticism in the hopes of earning the bronze star. The goal is to make GRB 970508 the best possible article that it can be. When your suggestions/edits are consistent with that goal (which, contrary to what you may believe based on my actions, is often the case), I will acknowledge them as such, just as I have for Ruslik, Wronkiew, Fasach Nua, Dr Pda, and everyone else who has participated here. When I believe that your suggestions/edits are not consistent with that goal, I will ignore/re-edit them mercilessly, just as Wikipedia suggests at the bottom of the edit page. The best course of action here is not for you to walk away or get frustrated, but to continue to identify sources of confusion such that we can work together to clear up the confusion. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    The changes I was making were not yet finished, it is both inappropriate and premature to suggest that they were 'very bad'. Common decency would suggest that despite your objections you should have waited until I had finished and proof read the article before making your own edits - if you had done so I think this discussion would not be taking place. Making mention of the disclaimer at the bottom of the edit window is ironic to say the least. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    There is no point in continuing this discussion. List your objections/points of confusion. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

    By the way, it is poor form for you to strikethrough any issues raised. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    Unstruck. Strike them yourself when you are satisfied; I assumed you would be. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support from Dr pda: I went to a seminar on gamma ray bursts a few weeks ago! Onto the article:
  • The article does a good job of explaining the significance of this particular gamma-ray burst.
  • Good to see correct use of nbsp's. The image is also correctly licensed.
  • I would suggest moving the time of discovery into the first sentence. When I read GRB 970508 was detected at 21:42 UTC by my first though was "on what date?" Moved.
  • I would also add some sort of explanation of the afterglow to the brief description of a GRB, e.g. A gamma-ray burst is a highly luminous flash of gamma rays, the most energetic form of electromagnetic radiation. It is followed by an "afterglow" of less energetic electromagnetic radiation, such as X-rays, visible light, or radio waves, which lasts for a longer period than the burst. Obviously the wording needs work. (Actually I've just seen there's a similar sentence in the lead of Gamma-ray burst, which could be stolen.) This would probably suffice to obtain the terms "X-ray afterglow", "optical afterglow", and "radio afterglow" which are not really explained later in the article. I stole a sentence from Gamma-ray burst.
  • Italian-Dutch should have an endash not a hyphen. Endash'd.
  • Suggest dropping the last three words of in other galaxies at cosmological distances as redundant.

    Hrm, I disagree. I think it's important to mention that detectable GRBs can occur anywhere in the universe, not just in the nearby galaxies. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    My concern was that "at cosmological distances" was somewhat technical jargon for "at distances which are large on the scale of the universe", which was (a) not really explained by the link to cosmology, (b) somewhat redundant since other galaxies are large distances away from us and (c) mentioned only briefly here in the lead. However the surrounding text has since been expanded, to make the "large distance but very high energy" idea clearer, so I don't have an issue with it now. Dr pda (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

  • With regard to the argument over the distance scale, the fact that one GRB was determined to be extragalactic does not logically preclude others from being closer. Perhaps you could expand on why (or or at least state that) the two options were mutually exclusive.

    I've rewritten and expanded, let me know what you think. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    Yes this makes it clearer. Except that now this information is only in the lead, not in the body of the article, which violates WP:LEAD. Dr pda (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    I've transferred the information to the Redshift section. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Dail Frail should be introduced as an astronomer in the lead as well. Introduced.
  • Add some sort of gloss like the space probe Ulysses. Gloss'd.
  • suggest adding ...working at the Very Large Array radio astronomy observatory. Added link to NRAO.
  • After brightening, the afterglow faded with a power law slope over approximately 100 days. This eventually ceased altogether to reveal the burst's host—I think this needs a bit of tweaking. The afterglow doesn't have a slope, and was it the ceasing of the power law slope or of the afterglow which revealed the source of the burst?. Perhaps After initally brightening, the afterglow faded over approximately 100 days, following a power law behaviour. It eventually faded altogether and revealed the burst's host... Reworded.
  • Is it really necessary to include who insisted upon analyzing the spectrum alone? Nope.
  • Do the sources actually use ergs? I would have expected the SI unit, Joules.

    Yep, it's ergs. Here's the exact quote: "This possibility follows from the recent analysis of GRB 990508 by Frail, Waxman and Kulkarni (1999), who find that the total energy is only 5×10⁵⁰ erg. At the same time Rhoads (1999b) finds that GRB 970508 was not strongly beamed, as its afterglow had unbroken power law decline for over 100 days. The total gamma-ray emission was at least 3×10⁵⁰ erg for this burst (Rhoads 1999b)....Of course, GRB 970508 was not a typical gamma-ray burst....We have no direct information for the ratio of these two energy forms [gamma-ray and kinetic] for any other burst."

    OK, if that's what the source used, that's fine. Dr pda (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    One other thing I should mention: The book does actually say "GRB 990508" as opposed to "GRB 970508". I assumed that this was a typo for two reasons: First, that whole section discusses GRB 970508. Second, the conference at which this article was presented ended on May 6 1999, two days before this supposed GRB 990508 would have occured. I realize that Bohdan was an extremely talented astronomer, but he's not that good. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Wouldn't it make more sense to discuss the limit the lack of the lyman alpha forest places on the redshift before giving the precise value for z? (Assuming of course that both redshifts are for the absorbing matter rather than the source of the burst. If this is not the case then it should be made clear)

    Hrm, not necessarily. I've rearranged it slightly differently, what do you think? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    OK, that makes it clearer. Dr pda (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

  • radio waves being bent by interstellar physics—do you mean plasma rather than physics here? Yep.
  • What sort of publication is the following? I can't tell if it's a book or journal article or something else:

    Paczyński, Bohdan (1999). "Gamma-Ray Burst–Supernova relation". M. Livio, N. Panagia, K. Sahu Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursts: The Greatest Explosions Since the Big Bang: 1–8, Space Telescope Science Institute.

    It's a conference proceedings. I used {{cite conference}}.

    Ah, I see. Might be a good idea to add the ISBN to make it easier for people to work out how to get hold of it. According to Worldcat it is ISBN 0-521-79141-3

    Yarp, my mistake. I had that in citation as isbn=0-521-79141-3 instead of id= ISBN 0-521-79141-3. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    I should really have looked at this in edit mode :) Dr pda (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

  • In the heading "Radio Observations", observations should not be capitalised.
• Dr pda (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• I assume the IAUC Metzger ref is "Metzger 1999a" from the short notes? There is no date in the references. Should give a retrieval date and publisher (IAUC in this case) also. Also, you say "Metzger 1999a" or "Metzger 1999b" in the notes, but the publication dates are 1997 in the references. Which is correct?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the circular citation, though I'm still not entirely sure what the correct format for a circular is. I've also corrected those dates from 1999 to 1997; that was my mistake. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. When in doubt, cite it like a web page... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Request: Would it be possible to create articles for some of the redlinks? I know it's not of central importance, but they sure ugly up a FAC. Seegoon (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Just a standard disclaimer, redlinks are not an actionable objections to FAs. All the same, I wouldn't mind seeing the red links stubbed. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, I might eventually try to whip up some articles on these guys. Flash! has some interesting tidbits on Stanislav Djorgovski, among other astrophysicists. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The article satisfies FA criteria now. Oppose for now:

1. The lead contains information that is not mentioned in the main text (A gamma-ray burst is a highly luminous flash of gamma rays, the most energetic form of electromagnetic radiation, often followed by a longer-lived "afterglow" emitting at longer wavelengths (X-ray, ultraviolet, optical, infrared, and radio).) and thus violates WP:LEAD.

   Now included in the first paragraph of Discovery.

2. The article is not fully complaint with 1(b). In particular it should provide better context for this discovery. I want to see a short section about BeppoSAX satellite (and possible about Ulysses) and more information about GRBs in general.

   Hrm, do you suggest I just plop a pargraph into Observations? Or should I start a new section called Background or some such?

   I will be satisfied with a paragraph. One of the main goals of BeppoSAX was investigation of the nature GRBs. This discovery was not accidental, it was planned. Ruslik (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

   I've added an introductory paragraph. I decided not to include Ulysses, but I did expand upon that bit later on.

3. What was the energy of gamma-rays detected by BeppoSAX and Ulysses?

   The Ulysses detection wasn't published. It was cited in Pian's article as a private communication from Kevin Hurley. I will try to find more information about the gamma-ray detection.

   Whew! I managed to find some information on the energy according to BeppoSAX and BATSE. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

4. Regarding optical afterglow. What was the spectral range, in which it was observed?

   I've added a paragraph about this. I must admit that I understood very little of what I read, so I may not have found exactly what you were looking for. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

   If I could interrupt here—this added paragraph is a bit jargon-heavy. I would suggest something like

   About 5 hours after the burst, the apparent magnitude of the object—a measure of its brightness—was 20.3 ± 0.3 in the U-band (the ultraviolet region of the spectrum) and 21.2 ± 0.1 in the R-band (the red region of the spectrum). This is approximately the same apparent magnitude as the moons of Pluto.^{Citation needed, see Apparent magnitude}The afterglow reached its peak luminosity in both bands approximately 2 days after the burst was detected—19.6 ± 0.3 in the U-band at 02:13 UTC on May 11, and 19.8 ± 0.2 in the R-band at 20:55 UTC on May 10. (A lower apparent magnitude corresponds to a greater brightness)^{Citation needed} Several optical spectra were obtained at the Calar Alto Observatory at wavelength ranges of 4300-7100 Å and 3500-8000 Å, though no emission lines were identified in any of these spectra.

   There is probably a better choice of object for the apparent magnitude comparison though.Dr pda (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   I like your paragraph, it's much more user-friendly than the crap that I churned out. However, I have two problems with making a magnitude comparison: First, comparing a specific band's magnitude with a the total magnitude of another might be misleading or confusing. Second, I haven't found any mention of a comparison in the journals. To come up with our own comparison would be WP:OR. Besides, if the reader really wants to get a better sense of this scale, s/he can just follow the link to apparent magnitude. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   Fair enough. Dr pda (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   Alright, changed. What do you think, Ruslik? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   I actually do not think that a simple comparison is an OR. Ruslik (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

5. Although the Caltech team and a competing team in Amsterdam were hesitant to publish... What is "Amsterdam team"? Is this the team of Djorgovski?

   It actually refers to Jan van Paradijs, Titus Galama, and Paul Groot. Later tonight I'll try expanding the observations section to include more about what they did. If it doesn't seem to fit, we can just delete it altogether, I suppose. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   Done. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

6. Further analysis of the burst by Frail, Waxman, and Kulkarni indicated that the total energy released by the burst was approximately 5×1050 erg, They assumed that the radiation was isotropic, did not they? This should be clarified.

   I'm fairly certain that they assumed it was isotropic, but the source doesn't explicitly say one way or the other. It does mention Rhoads's paper and his previous analysis of the beaming, so I've added that. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

7. Although the isotropic distribution of bursts suggested that they do not occur within or nearby the Milky Way This is wrong. Isotropic distribution is fully compatible with the Milky Way origin of GRBs, provided that they are located in the halo, not in the disk.

   Whoops, you're quite right. Don Lamb made it very clear in his debate with Paczynski that the isotropic distribution only excludes the disk. Corrected. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

8. Was the host galaxy of this GRB investigated? And what results were obtained?

   Woot, I added a nice little section about the host galaxy and incorporated some information from Observations. Is this what you had in mind? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   So the red shift of the host coincides with the first redshift determined from the absorption lines? Ruslik (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, I've clarified that. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Several scientists, Rhoads, Waxman, and Kulkarni, need to be properly introduced. Also, I left a comment in the lead section. Vigorous? Wronkiew (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  I've tweaked the 'disagreement' statement, do you find it less awkward now? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  I've introduced Rhoads and Reichart. I took out Waxman and Kulkarni. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• "When did When did Rhoads become involved in studying the GRB?" Erm, not sure how to answer this? Lots of astronomers study every GRB. He wasn't involved in the discovery of GRB 970508, but he still wrote a paper on it. Does the article imply that the astronomers mentioned are the only ones to have studied the burst?
• "Who did he suggest this to?" Reworded.
• "Did it rule out the models? Did other astronomers agree that the models were invalidated?" Hmm. Here, I'll post the direct quote for you:

  "If these claims [the two energy calculations] are correct then for this gamma-ray and kinetic energies were comparable, and this rules out the popular 'internal shock' models, which are very inefficient in generating gamma-rays (e.g. Kumar 1999)"

• "Lyman-alpha forest needs a short explanation." I agree. Unfortunately, I really don't understand the topic myself. I can't explain lyman-alpha forests without mentioning the lyman series and lyman-alpha lines, neither of which make any sense to me. What do you suggest?
• "Awkward again." Reworded.
• "This is a very confusing conclusion. Are there multiple types of GRBs, or did this end the debate in favor of one type?" Rereading this section of Flash!, there really isn't any mention of multiple types of GRBs. I guess I just assumed that the two theories weren't mutually exclusive. Everything I've read about this burst and about other bursts that occurred later seems to treat it as evidence that there is one type of burst which occurs very far away. I've removed the bit about non-mutually-exclusive theories. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• "'Explained as being' is awkward." I disagree (strongly), but I suppose you can have Parrot of Doom hold me down while you reword that sentence, if you'd like. :) --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have some concerns about this article, which keep me from supporting a promotion. The layout is chronological, which is appropriate for an article about an event. However, in several places I noticed that information is restated several times, either with increasing accuracy, or to explain who observed what. Some of the astronomers are introduced, contribute a bit of information about the GRB, then are never mentioned again. Galama, Groot, and Paradijs, in particular, don't make any contribution at all to the subject. The proliferation of characters makes the article difficult to follow, and I think a reorganization is in order. I recommend that you trim out the people who did not make significant advances in our understanding of this event. Then you need to separate the chronology of the observations from the chronology of the event. You have two stories to tell in the article. One is about the pretty fireworks, the relativistically exploding galactic core, and the odd variations in energy output. The other story is about the competing models, the astronomers and satellites, the calculations, and the radiation's journey over a good part of the universe. I should be able to start with a question and be able to find the section in the article where it is answered just by looking at the table of contents. Right now, if I want to know more about "relativistically expanding fireballs", I can find it in "Radio observations", and I would have not thought to look there. If I want to know more about where in space the event occurred, I can find it in "Host galaxy", which is perfect. If I want to know how bright the host galaxy is, I can find the information easily enough, but it is presented as a story of the observations, not as fact. Where would I find an estimate for the total energy produced by the event? To sum up, the prose is good and the story of the astronomers is organized well, but you need to trim some of the irrelevant detail and better organize the information about the event itself. Wronkiew (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  Alright, fair enough. Here's my idea for a new layout: Discovery stays as it is. Observations to briefly describe how each relevant piece of information was determined. Characteristics to describe aspects of the burst itself (energy, distance, apparent magnitude). Host galaxy stays as it is. If any of those sections gets too cluttered, we can just add subsections to divide it up in a similar manner to how it is presented now. I'll try implementing this later today. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  Hokay, I've attempted to rearrange the content. Thumbs up? Thumbs down? I realize some of the phrasing might be a little wonky now that the paragraphs are in a different order, so once we settle on a good layout, I'll go through and rewrite stuff as necessary. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  Looks good, although you're right that you have some work left to do on the prose. Also, it's not clear what information I would find in the "Implications" section. You might find some good ideas for the section layout in the comet FAs. Wronkiew (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

  I've changed Implications to Distance scale and emission model. Better? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

  Yes. From a brief look through the article, you still need to move some content from "Characteristics" to "Observations". Wronkiew (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  Hrm. Were you referring to the pargraph about the redshift? Or about the U-band/R-band magnitudes / spectra? Or both? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

images Academia is a rich source of free images, the image can be illustrated with images of the observatory, diagrams of red shift, equipment... the graphical content to brighten up the article is here on wp, you dont even have to look for it. Fasach Nua (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Okey doke, I've added pictures of BeppoSAX and the VLA. Do you think it needs any more? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The new images look great, however the two Hubble images are indistinguishable unless they are right next to each other, giving the appearance that you have included the same image twice. You could try cropping the galaxy in the second image so it displays at full resolution as a thumbnail. Not a major issue though. Wronkiew (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, the problem with cropping either image is that it might give the false impression that the host galaxy was significantly larger than the afterglow (or vice versa). The value of having both images at the same size is that it allows the reader to make an accurate comparison between the two, but I suppose that's hard to do when they're not next to each other... --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Fasach Nua has responded here, he will not revisit. For all purposes of discussion, this concern was addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm very close to supporting but I'd like to see each sentence that mentions a number or figure have an inline cite per WP:V. --mav (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Support Great article. --mav (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:19, 11 April 2009 [18].

---

SY Aurora's drift

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream polar heroes hog the limelight, but sometimes it's the behind-the-scenes people who have the best stories. Here's a seafaring tale that deserves to be known. Thanks to Finetooth for the map, Jappalang for image and other advice, and several conscientious peer reviewers. Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose because article has zero references in the lead. This is very bad style. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not an actionable oppose per the featured article criteria. There is no requirement for citations in an article's lead, as it is just a summary of the article's content. Maralia (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Maralia is right. It's an editor's preference as to whether the lead should be referenced. I tend to not cite lead sections when I write articles because I focus on presenting uncontroversial facts there, and expand on those—with citation—in the article's text. Looking through my current FAs in alphabetical order, I have the following number of citations before the TOC: 4, 1, 3, 6, 3, 5, 5, 5. Most of those citations are for statistics or material that isn't repeated in the article's main body. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Aurora (ship) does not even link to this article. And that is a very short article; could they possibly be merged? Reywas92^Talk 01:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Aurora (ship) links in the second paragraph of the lead. The ship has a considerable history as an Antarctic vessel; it would be better to develop the ship article properly, rather than to merge it here. Brianboulton (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • No, I meant that the ship article does not link to the drift article. Reywas92^Talk 15:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • So you did – sorry. What I said about merging still stands though. Brianboulton (talk)
• Comments

• According to WP:REFTOOLS, the ref name Tyler-Lewis_125–27 is used more than once to name different refs; it should only name 1 ref

• • This has been fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• disambiguation and external links are up to standards (checked with the respective finder tools).--Truco 03:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support I was one of the peer reviewers and think this meets all the FA criteria. My only quibbles are wondering if File:ErebusIceTongue ASTER 30nov2001.jpg (perhaps in a labeled version) might be better to show McMurdo Sound, Hut Point, Aurora's anchorage, the ice tongue, and perhaps other points mentioned in the article. The other quibble I have is that looking at this image I am not sure north and south are the best directions to use describing anchorage positions relative to the ice tongue - not sure if the problem is in the image or what. Other than that this is excellent work (as always) and another fascinating story, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• PS I have looked at other maps of McMurdo Sound and the problem seems to be with the North arrow on the image I have suggested. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, that is why I didn't choose this image (which I have used in other articles). The North arrow is wrong – it is pointing eastward. If I used it here it would confuse the whole issue in the article about mooring north or south of Glacier Tongue. If someone clever can amend the image, with a proper NSEW indicator, I'd be happy to use it. Meanwhile I am looking at the caption on the present image to see if this can be clarified. Another solution might be to use Image:Mcmurdo sound USGS map.jpg, but I.m concerned at the lack of source information in the image description. Brianboulton (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I fixed the arrow in the image noted and in File:Mackintosh walk.png. If you let me know what labels you want, I could try and make a labeled version, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • This is most helpful. Using File:Mackintosh walk.png, A = Hut Point and B is Cape Evans. Those are the only points needed for this. If this can be done I'll be happy to switch to this image. Brianboulton (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
        • It was quite easy to take Finetooth's A and B labels and paste them on the blank map, it is at File:Possible Aurora Mooring Sites.jpg. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Is there are another way to name this article. Somehow the title seems rather informal. When I first saw it, I thought it was some type of natural phenomenon. Also, isn't the prefix usually in a the title of a ship article (eg. Timeline of the sinking of the RMS Titanic)? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 23:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for raising this. Prefix would make it SY Aurora's drift. Would that help? I seem to remember the article long ago being called "Drift of the Aurora" but it was changed a while back. "Drift of SY Aurora" might do - tell me what you think. What a pity this wasn't raised at PR, but never mind! Brianboulton (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Sounds better. I would suggest the move, if others don't object. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 07:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I am fine with either new name and would make a redirect for the one not chosen. Is there a standard way of refering to this incident that would be a suitable article name? If none is standard, I prefer SY Aurora's drift. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I had to look up SY to see what it meant. "Steam Yacht" it seems. Might I suggest that a spelled-out version be added to the lead in the first handy place? Maybe the second instance (third sentence of the lead) would be a better place than the first instance, which would extend and dilute the bolding. A link to steam yacht would then be possible and useful. Finetooth (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the title to "SY Aurora's drift, and linked steam yacht in the lead. I don't know how to italicise in an article's name, or if this can be done. There is no standard way of referring to this incident beyond either "X's drift" or "Drift of the X". The chapter in Shackleton's book is called "The Aurora's drift", which is I think what led me to the former title. I agree this one is better, though. Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Due to technical limitations, page titles can't be italicized. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support with comments:
• This sentence is awkward: "Mackintosh was anxious that the depot-laying work should begin at once – the party was three weeks behind schedule – [8]and decided to take charge of this himself."

• The last sentence of "Release" section gives coordinates but this is useless info to people like me who do not know what this means. Can you elaborate a bit on what those coordinates mean like tell us how many miles from something it represents? Otherwise it all looks great.NancyHeise ^talk 02:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I have reordered the rather clumsy sentence you have spotted, getting rid of the intrusive dashes; hope it's better now. I have also identified the coordinates respectively as latitude and longitude, and have linked these terms. The map shows the 14 March position in relation to the Antarctic, Australia and New Zealand landmasses; I hope the situation is now clearer to you. Stenhouse estimates that the drift covered 1,600 miles from Cape Evans, but doesn't give the distance to port at the time of release – it can be worked out from the coordinates, but that would be OR. Thank you for your comments and support. Brianboulton (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's fine - neat article, I found it very interesting. NancyHeise ^talk 11:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support I was one of the peer reviewers, and my concerns have been addressed except for a new half-quibble. Should the mention of "steam yacht" and "whaler" also appear in the "Background" section of the article so that the lead can be said to summarize the main text rather than introducing material not mentioned in the main text? It would slide in easily as "This former Arctic whaler and steam yacht, though strongly built, was 40 years old... ". Finetooth (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, "steam yacht" (SY) is a registration category rather than a ship description, like MV (motor vessel), RMS (Royal Mail ship) etc. It covers such a range of different ships as to be meaningless as a description. I have used the former Arctic whaler in the Background section, which is really as much as I can do. Thank you for your support and for earlier help with the article's map. Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'm fine with this. Finetooth (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:19, 11 April 2009 [19].

---

California State Route 78

Nominator(s): Rschen7754 (T C) 01:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This article meets the criteria of a FA and comprehensively covers the topic. Disclaimer: This article has failed twice because of inactivity - reviewers have not responded to addressed comments, or nobody has reviewed the article at all. Also, California State Route 78 is not the longest state route in California. Rschen7754 (T C) 01:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Minor quibble (and this goes for all of Category:State highways in California, not this article in particular) – can File:California State Route 78.svg be amended to show at least a couple of place names, to give some sense of what it represents and some idea of scale? At the moment it's effectively meaningless, as unless you're already intimately familiar with California geography there's no way of knowing what it represents. – iridescent 12:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment on this concern- This goes both ways. Other maps on road articles have been criticized for being impossible to read at small resolutions due to place names and the like. With that said, this is a relatively old map, and the newer maps created by the project tend to have more information. Dave (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can contact somebody to get this fixed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that a few relevant features would be nice. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Map issue resolved. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- Disambiguation and external links check out fine with the respective checker tools in the toolbox, as does the ref formatting with the WP:REFTOOLS script.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Interesting and well-written. I believe this article satisfies the requirements. Comments The intro seems a little weak. Perhaps some mention of the sand dunes would help. I also agree with Iridescent, anyone unfamilar with the area is completely lost when only cities are used for points of reference, especially when the map is blank. The article is comprehensive, yes, but not very engaging in its current state. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Map issue resolved. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I added a bit to the lead, let me know if this helps. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The map looks better. The intro is slightly better. I think three paragraphs is a good rule of thumb, however the article itself is rather small so perhaps I am being too picky. I will leave it at that. I gave the article a thorough reading this time around, and have listed some issues:

1. "The section of SR 78 from the western junction of SR 79 to the western junction with SR 86 is legally eligible for the State Scenic Highway System;[8] however, only the section in Anza Borrego Desert State Park has officially been designated as being part of the system.[9]" - The phrase "legally eligible" seems a little ambigious. Could this be clarified? Is the entire route actually a designated scenic highway, but only a portion of it actually signed as such? If so, these two sentences should be modfied.

   Clarified. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

2. "Following this, the road follows a serpentine alignment," - Kinda lost me here. Following what? Is the road following the valley, state park, or did you mean after the road leaves the state park it follows a serpentine alignment? Perhaps some minor change here could improve readability.

   Clarified. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

3. "the junction's name refers to the shape of the interchange as CR S2 runs concurrently in a wrong-way concurrency." - Should this link to Concurrency_(road)#Wrong-way_concurrency instead?

   Fixed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

4. "Before the designation of SR 78, a road known as the Brawley-Westmorland-Julian-Oceanside Highway connecting Oceanside, Escondido, Ramona, Julian, Westmorland, and Brawley existed around 1900." - This sentence is quite a mouthful. Perhaps some parentheses around the cities would help with readability.

   Fixed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

5. "SR 78 was originally formed along with the majority of the Sign Routes in 1934" - What are the "Sign Routes"?

   Added an explanation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

6. "This portion of the road was specifically designed to address the challenges of building it through sand dunes.[25]" - What were some of the challenges and how did they address them? I think this is the most interesting fact in the article yet it only garners one sentence! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

   Added more information. All issues addressed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Two suggestions to fill in what may be gaps in the article. The article mentions the road is named in honor of two people, but the article never explains who these people are, or why the road would be named after them. As the road was extended through the Imperial Valley in the 1960's, I'm guessing this road has some pretty important significance for agriculture. In fact, I'd guess the road might have been built just for that purpose, considering a significant amount of produce is grown there. Any info on that?Dave (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• I added info about Ronald Packard and a link. "Ben Hulse" doesn't show up on Wikipedia or Google. I'm not sure about where I would get agricultural info. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • He was apparently a teacher turned state legislator in El Centro California, there is an elementary school in Imperial also named after him. Here's some leads [20] [21] I suspect this is the article with the key as it both mentions him and a new highway in the Imperial Valley and published in the 1956, unfortunately you're going to have to pay to read it [22]. You might talk to NE2, he's a pro of knowing what to search for to get the teaser paragraph to display all the relevant info without having to pay. Never ceases to amaze me how he does it. I'd at least talk to him about squeezing enough info to confirm this is the article you want before shelling out the cash.Dave (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I may be able to get it for free - I'll take a look at the library today. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I did get the article but got tied up with stuff on Wikipedia. I hope to get to it sometime this week. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Resolved - added information on Ben Hulse. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I like the change, and would encourage more digging through old newspapers, it's a pain, but from my experience gives the most interesting info. one more comment. I'm not a fan of using the italicized 86 in the exit list. IMO its confusing. I handled a similar situation differently on U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. There were some who were opposed to how I did it, but IMO it's clearer than the italics. Dave (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
    • The explanation is in the note at the top of the junction list. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 23:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments-I have some concerns with this article before I will support it for FA:

1. "state highway in the state": The use of the word "state" twice sounds a little awkward. Is there any other word that can be used?

   This is typical for a USRD article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   1. Utah State Route 128 is an example of how I did it that passed FA muster.

      1. Done. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Is there any more information that can be added to the lead?

   I added a bit to the lead, let me know if this helps. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

3. "State Route 78 begins in Oceanside as a continuation of Vista Way. As it encounters a traffic signal and crosses over I-5, the route becomes a suburban freeway traveling east through Oceanside." Doesn't it begin at I-5? It sounds a little unclear in these two sentences.

   Route begins as a continuation of Vista Way, at the intersection with the ramps to I-5. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

4. Avoid overusing "then" in route description

   Fixed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

5. What is a "serpentine alignment"?

   Serpentine definition: of or like a serpent or snake : serpentine coils. • winding and twisting like a snake : serpentine country lanes. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

6. Clarify what a "primitive road" is.

   Removed; I don't remember what I meant when I wrote that. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

7. "A Swedish company has commenced the construction of this bypass" souds awkward. Also, when specifically did construction on the Brawley bypass begin?

   Corrected. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

8. Are the missing postmiles in hte Major intersections table known?

   No, they are not available. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

9. Reference 2 appears to be a personal website. However, the reference uses information from the CALIFORNIA HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC WORKS. Is there an alternate source that shows this information?

   This appears to be a verbatim copy of a document from them; apparently this is okay per above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

10. For the map references, is there additional information that needs to be included such as the scale of the map and the cartographer? In the case of many of the gas station maps, there is usually a cartographer who makes the map for the gas station.

    Typically the scale isn't necessary. I don't know if the cartographer is specifically necessary, but I will go to the library tomorrow and pull that up. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    I added the scale and cartography for all the maps I could find. I couldn't find some of them; maybe somebody checked them out or they got misfiled. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

11. The link in reference 25 comes up as "403 Forbidden"

    A fee is required to view the article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

12. Reference 38 links to a page telling how the articles from the IHT are being moved

    I can't find the new article; we may have to wait until the articles finish being moved to fix it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

13. Reference 41 and 43 are the same, they can probably be merged into one reference

    Oops. Fixed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

14. The article needs more pictures. If possible, try to obtain some pictures of the route. You can also try looking on Flickr for pictures with suitable copyrights. For the history section, you can use a cropped image from this 1947 USGS Map, a PD image, to show the pre-freeway routing of CA 78 Dough4872 (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    I don't think I can get more route pictures soon. I'll look into getting the history map though. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    Added the history map. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    All comments addressed or replied to. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

    Support - All of my major concerns have been addressed. However, it would be nice for more images to eventually be added to the article. Dough4872 (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment

1. The eastern terminus at I-10 stated in the infobox is incorrect. SR 78 does not end in Blythe; it should say that SR 78 ends near Blythe.

   Fixed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Where does reference #1 (bridge log) state total mileage? The source only gives county-based postmiles. Due to realignments at some junctions, you can't just simply add all the county postmiles up in order to get the total mileage.

   But the equations correct for this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

   What equations? -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 21:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

   None are necessary for SR 78, if there aren't any in the bridge log. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   So are you just saying that a reader has to add up all the county postmile equations together to come up with the total mileage? I wouldn't think they'd do that There should be a reliable source that directly states the total mileage. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 00:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   Addition is perfectly fine to get mileages. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   Like I said, realignments may affect accurate addition. I'm more inclined to support using the trucklist rather than the brdige log. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 00:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   So you want to use a possibly imprecise (3 decimal place) number that doesn't include the SR 86 segment? And don't use the argument that you can add a two-decimal number to a three-decimal number and not lose any precision. (A three decimal number is not available). --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   The mileage that was in the article may already be possibly imprecise, because you just added them up despite realignments and temporary connections at some junctions. Show me how you arrived at the length of 215.39 mi using the bridge log. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 00:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   Furthermore, if you used the trucklist mileage, while it may not include the SR 86 overlap, you can just make a little note below the mileage and say (includes XX mileage from SR 86). This should not affect the amount of precision taken from the trucklist and bridge log. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 00:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   You just add the mileages in San Diego, Imperial, and Riverside counties plus the overlap mileage. In this case, no correction for realignments is necessary. (If there was, there would be a listed equation such as "R0.00 is 1.49". There isn't for SR 78 - http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/brlog/logpdf/logd11.pdf). There are not multiple possible answers for the addition of four numbers, and this isn't first year calculus. New York State Route 28 does the same and is a FA. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)\

   And NY SR 28 also made a little note adding the I-595 overlap mileage below. Did the total mileage of SR 28 included the mileage with the I-595 overlap? If not, can't we do this same type of format for SR 78 (this is what I'm suggesting all along)? (And obviously, this isn't first year calculus; we aren't dealing with derivativs or integrals.) -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 16:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

1. (reset) You miss the point: the average adult can be given the same numbers and get the same result. The question is, why do we need to use your format for the article? You are suggesting a solution to a problem that does not exist. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   This was originally NE2 (talk · contribs)'s format of the article; look at California State Route 139's mileage formatting as an example. We want to give as much precision as possible. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 20:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   But that precision cannot be achieved if you cannot get the total length of the route to three decimal places. Readers don't care about the length of SR 78 if it doesn't include the SR 86 overlap. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   Which is why there is a separate note that says {plus XX mi on SR XX). As precision to three decimanl places cannot be maintained, that's what the little note is for. That's where readers can directly add up the mileage values (hence the "plus" in the note). -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 23:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   You still haven't addressed my argument. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   My question is: would you rather have readers figure out the source themselves (adding mileages), or would you at least let readers verify based on the information that is visible to them? -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 02:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   That's a red herring: regardless of what we do, they can verify the source with the citation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

2. This article lacks amount of good-quality images.

   Yeah... --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   And I take it that FAC is not that concerned about this at all? -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 16:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   I can't speak for everyone, but it doesn't concern me. All the FA criteria says is "It has images that follow the image use policies and other media where appropriate […]" – there's no minimum number of images or a requirement for images-for-images-sake when they're not necessary. – iridescent 16:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

-- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 00:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support with the proviso that the distances issue immediately above this is resolved. I'm going to take factual accuracy on faith, as I've no intention of scrutinizing maps or adding up mileage totals. That aside, I know from experience how hard it is to make non-glamorous roads readable and comprehensive without veering off into either irrelevant trivia or overspecialized technicalities, and I can see no issues at all with this one. – iridescent 00:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Image review: images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note, there are some missing lastaccess dates on citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this for {{cite news}} or {{cite web}}? --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall; pls just scan that URLs have accessdates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:19, 11 April 2009 [23].

---

To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World

Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the most famous document in Texas history - given just the title, most native Texans can tell you when the letter was written, who wrote it, and give you the general gist of what it said. This is the first time I've attempted an article about a written work, and it is a little unusual because the letter is so very short, and its impact on history is greater than its impact on literature. Much thanks to Moni3 for a very helpful review; hopefully with her help I've adequately explained all the background information. Karanacs (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Technical Review

• Disambiguation and external links check out with the respective link checker tools.
• Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS script)

• The following refs (code pasted below) are duplicated and appear in the ref section more than once, a ref name should be used instead.

• Green (1988), p. 484.
• Hardin (1994), p. 121.
• Todish et al (1998), p. 40.
• Green (1988), p. 492.
• Green (1988), p. 498.

• The following ref names are given to more than 1 ref when they should only name 1 ref.

• green484
• hardin121
• todish40
• todish42
• green492
• green498--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I've double-checked the references section, and all references are appearing once and only once in that section. You may want to modify your script - both of these sets of "issues" are caused when a named ref has all details spelled out in an identical way more than once. As the output is correct, there is no error or issue here. Karanacs (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't my script, but so whats the purpose of the ref name if you aren't going to use it properly such as <ref name="name of ref"/>--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3 File:David g burnet.jpg - This image has no source, date, or author for the original image. There is no way to verify its PD status. (I'm looking forward to reading the article later!) Awadewit (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Awadewit. I know the image is public domain, I just can't quite track down the documentation at the moment. I've replaced it in the article with File:David g burnett3.JPG, first published in the US in 1875. Karanacs (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

All images have adequate descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support as reviewer. Well written article on a very specific document. --Moni3 (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral Support as reviewer. Hey Karanacs. Long time no see. This is the first FAC I have reviewed in a while, and probably the most comprehensive review I have done. I am being very nitpicky. I review the page as someone who knows little about the subject. most of what I have said can probably be argued the other way. But over all, I like the page over all. Not too many changes can change my viewpoint of the page.

• Texas State Library should have one wikilink -> Texas State Library and Archives Commission

• I feel that that the text, or at least a quote of the document should be in or very close to the introduction.

• "Shortly after, Travis wrote an open letter pleading for reinforcements." This sentence does not make it clear to me that this is the actual document that the article is about. clarify.

• Maybe the document should use quote templates like those seen on the United States Declaration of Independence page, rather than having the whole text of document.

• page could be clearer about how the letter influenced David G. Burnet becoming president. Was there no one else who wanted to be president. Was everyone scared. or were there many people who wanted to be president, who were lousy, and because the document encouraged Burnet to stay, Texas had a great president. . . .

• Not a deal breaker, but it would be nice to have a sentence or two on why the letter has is called this name as opposed to say "Travis's Alamo Statement".

• I'd like to see an explicit statement of the why the letter is important in the introduction. After reading the article 2-3 times, I think you are saying that while the letter did not get reinforcements to the alamo to save the defenders, it roused enough would be reinforcements to form the core of Houston's army with in turn won the war. Is that correct?

• $85. Not a deal breaker, but is there anyway of finding an inflation adjusted number?

• The sections, preservation and reception should be flipped.

• Changed my mind on this. I feel there is a difference between the reception at the time of the war, and afterwords. Why not merge the second paragraph into of the reception section into earlier sections of the article. Then rename the section academic reception, or post revolution reception. . . . . 05:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Background should have less about how the revolution started, and give more context about the revolution. An elaborated version of this sentence that I found in the reception section would be nice. "At the time Travis wrote the letter, Texas settlers were divided on whether they were fighting for independence or a return to a federalist government in Mexico. The confusion caused many settlers to remain at home rather than join the army."

• Why is the quoted text in the distribution section not in Italics while the quoted text in the development section is.

• Why does the See also section have "list of alamo defenders", but nothing else.

• Not related to this FA page, why is there a battle of the alamo template at the bottom of the page, but not a texas revolution one?

Keep up the good work. Gig em! Oldag07 (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review!! You've brought up some really insightful points. I've made the following changes:

• Wikilinks to the library (thanks for finding that)
• Removed the italics from the letter. That got snuck in since I nominated the article and I didn't notice it.
• Added an inflation calculator
• Added the quote "Victory or Death" into the lead. I also rearranged the lead a little so that the quote asserting its importance in Texas history is right at the front. I don't think I can get more explicit about the letter's importance. Travis wrote lots of letters (although this is the only one well-remembered), so this particular one can't take sole credit for encouraging people to volunteer. I had to make the description a little wishy-washy so that I wasn't going too far beyond the sources.
• I rewrote one sentence to Shortly after, Travis wrote an open letter pleading for reinforcements from "the people of Texas & All Americans in the World". Hopefully that makes it more clear that we are talking about the subject of the article, and that the letter got its name from the salutation.
• The background section has been expanded a bit, with pieces from the reception section added, as well as a little more.
• I've rewritten the second paragraph of the reception second (and added a bit to the 3rd).
• I added another two sentences about Burnet's election.

I'm not intending to make the following changes (or I'm answering your questions):

• Quote templates rather than the whole document. The letter itself is very short, and I think that it should be included in its entirety. Otherwise, I think it will be harder for people unfamiliar with the letter to understand some of the criticism (good and bad). I chose not to include the postscripts in full (just small quotes in the text), because they aren't usually mentioned in the sources much.
• I included the Alamo template because the letter is listed in that template as part of the battle. The Texas Revolution template lists only battles, and not the letter, so I didn't include that one.

• It isn't that I am so much against an alamo template, as i am for a texas revolution template that has more than just battles. Sections could be, key people, major battles, major documents, declaration of independence, republic of texas. . . ? That however is not a problem with this page, but rather a suggestion for all the Texas Revolution pages. Oldag07 (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I included the list of Alamo defenders in the See Also because the article specifically mentions that almost all of the defenders were killed (and that more defenders arrived in response to Travis's letters). I couldn't think of anything else extremely pertinent to put in the section, but I'm open to suggestions.

• Since the alamo template is already up, i don't see why a see also section is even necessary. Oldag07 (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what to say about what the letter is called. It's given this name because that is how Travis addressed the letter; none of the sources explicitly state that, but I thought it was obvious. Any ideas on how to make this more clear?

• Not a big point for me Oldag07 (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, thank you very much. Karanacs (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Much improved. The only other thing I would do is for the inflation numbers, instead of using the term "today's dollars", I would use "20XX dollars", to be more specific. Changed my stance from neutral to support. Gig em!Oldag07 (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Leaning towards support Ooh - a historical document! How cool! This article was quite fascinating to read. In general, it is a clear explanation of the background leading up to the document's production and the document itself. I just have a few suggestions:

• Texians aligned themselves with proponents of federalism, in opposition to a centralized government. - This is confusing, as I associate federalism with centralized government.

• Four copies of the original broadsides are known to survive. One was placed for auction in 2004, where it was predicted to reach a price of over $250,000 - Do we know what price it actually sold for?

• Unlike the rest of the article, the "Reception" section attributes almost every idea. How necessary is this? I found the writing in that section to be much more choppy because of this. Does the average reader need to know who said each of these quotes? Cannot more of these ideas be paraphrased and written in the same flowing style as the rest of the article?

• I found the last paragraph, about Bush and the Ryder Cup, to be a facile ending. Is this really necessary? The paragraph almost suggests that the team won because Bush read this letter to them, which is, of course, poppycock.

• It is clear to me which words and phrases in the the letter might lead one to view it as sentimental and melodramatic, but that might not be clear to everyone. Could you perhaps add a few sentences explicitly explaining that?

Thanks for writing this - it is both informative and enjoyable! Awadewit (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Awadewit, I was hoping you'd have the time and interest to review this one. I've made the following changes:

• Texians aligned themselves with proponents of federalism advocating a stronger role for state governments, in opposition to a centralized government that set most policies at the national level
• I could not find any articles discussing the price the broadsheet actually brought.
• I had to spend several days mulling the reception section in my head, and it's now almost completely rewritten. I think the new version is drastically better than the old one. Thank you for prodding me in that direction, and please let me know if you have other ideas for improving it. As part of this, I added an additional sentence about the melodramatic phrasing, but, while it is as clear to me as it is to you, I can't find a detailed analysis of which parts caused critics to label the letter that way. For the most part, they just dismiss it as melodramatic without any detail.
• I've also removed the Bush anecdote. That has always bothered me too, and I only included it as a link to how the letter may be popularly seen today.

Karanacs (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing to full support. The rewrite of the "Reception" section is particularly good. Thanks for taking the time to do that! Awadewit (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Having been subjected to literally hundreds of Karanacs comments on my articles, I was relishing this opportunity to possibly load her up with some of my own. Unfortunately, I was at a loss for suggestions to improve upon this article, sorry Karanacs. NancyHeise ^talk 02:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I definitely appreciate the review, Nancy. If you are interested, I may run a few of my pending articles by you in the future so you'll have a chance to bombard me with issues to fix, too - that will give Moni a little break! Karanacs (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I owe you about a year and a half's worth of reviewing so I would be very happy to help out. I thank you for all your help in the past which was not always well received or appreciated but is now. NancyHeise ^talk 01:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:19, 11 April 2009 [24].

---

Stamata Revithi

Nominator(s): Yannismarou (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Some decades ago Revithi was almost unknown. During the resurgence of feminism and the revitalization of women's role in modern society, she was treated as a symbol. A poor woman from Syros, who never imagined that she would become the main topic of a Wikipedia's article some 100+ years later! With very few existing sources, it was a temptation for me to create a nice and attractive article for "Melpomene" (if she is indeed the runner "Melpomene"!). The article went through a peer-review, where I tried to properly handle all the raised concerns. Additionally, User:H1nkles provided me with some excellent feedback in the article's talk page. I'm grateful for this review as well as for checking the prose. Many thanks to User:Ceoil (as usually!) and User:Karanacs, who also checked the prose. Personally, I did the best I could, taking always into consideration the scarcity of relevant sources. I thought it was the right time for this nomination.Yannismarou (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Technical Review -- Disambiguation and external links are up to standards (checked with the checker tools), and the ref formatting (checked with the WP:REFTOOLS script) is also up to speed.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Looks like a very nice article, and I want to support eventually. Before I do so, however, I want you to look at these items:

• Before the 1896 Olympics: "Contemporary sources do not mention her having a husband, so likely she was widowed." Move "likely" to after "was", perhaps?
• "and based on a Michel Breal's idea of a race...". First "a" seems like a grammar error.
• Don't think the word international needs a link.
• 1896 marathon: "the organizers promised that she would compete with a team of American women in another race in Athens, which however never took place." Remove however.
• Someone needs to check the photo of the end of the marathon, as there's no indication that the reason for PD status is valid.

• I have checked it, and the PD status seemed to me valid. I can add a link of the 1896 Official report, where the picture was published.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Melpomene: Before the quote in the first sentence, add "there was" to improve flow.
• Remove the Olympic Games link here; interested readers will probably have clicked on the first one. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Giants, all done, except verifying the pd; though the picture is 112 3/4 years old. Ceoil (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure about the 3/4 stuff? Did you go through a date counter or something like that (we should have one in the project, since we have already promoted and developed to near perfection the edit counters!)?!--Yannismarou (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I know people and machines you can only imagine. Ceoil (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That is what I mean. We have the source of the picture (the 1896 report). Taking into consideration the fact of how old this picture is (113 years), it seems improbable to me to have any copyright issue here. But I can remove it or try to replace it, if it is deemed necessary. By the way, thanks again Ceoil.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Was the report actually released in 1896? If so, it's just fine. Sorry about that. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Phew! Ceoil (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Image review - File:Stade1896.jpg - Could you please indicate the page number where this image is located? Also, note that this book seems to have authors listed and perhaps an illustrator. All of the information from the title page should be listed in the "Source" field so that it is easier to sort out the licensing (which I'm still working on). Awadewit (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Γιούπι! I found it! It is page 77 of the second part of the Review.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I also found the name of the photographer in the book. I would feel better if this image were hosted on Wikipedia, since we cannot establish the death date for this person and thus that he has been dead for 70 years (on Commons, the image has to be PD in the US and in its country of origin). Would you mind moving it over to Wikipedia or trying to find a death date? Awadewit (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind all. By the way, since you are one of the best Wikipedia's reviewers (Do you remember the good old days we were both reviewing in WP:BIOGRAPHY?!), could we also have your input and reviews on the article in general! Thank you, by the way, for your copy-editing!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I do remember those good old days - so much less wikistress than my life these days! Awadewit (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - My one real gripe with this article is that there is minimal information on her life outside this one event. We don't even have a death date, not to mention the lack of a solid birthdate. However, I'm convinced that the nominator has done everything possible to find this information, which unfortunately doesn't seem to exist. I've come out against short articles in the past, but I think this one just scrapes past the requirements. Everything else looks good, and I even did a little copy-editing (there wasn't much to do after Awadewit finished her run-through, but every little bit helps). Giants2008 (17-14) 00:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you also Giants for the copy-edits. Having you, Awadewit, Ceoil, Karanacs (some of the top copyeditors Wikipedia ever had!) going through the article's prose is really a great chance.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• As far as the minimal information thing you mention, let me just say that you are, of course, correct. Nevertheless, I may be the worse copy-editor and prose writer in the world (and I really am! This is no joke at all!), but, if there is one thing I am really scrupulous, this is source-digging. As I state in my nomination declaration, whatever information could be found about Revithi, it is here!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Support as a peer reviewer. Two small questions:

• Is there any background to this comment "since male Greek athletes had already been humiliated by the Americans" that we should be aware of? I'm not that familiar with the 1896 Olympics and so wasn't sure if there was a particular event she was referring to.

• I give an explanation in Note 11. She refers to the fact that Americans had dominated athletic events during the previous days, despite the high Greek expectations.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, I assumed that was just a reference and didn't check to see if there was a note there too. Karanacs (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Is there information on how long it took the male winner to run the race (or slowest male runner)? That would make a good footnote to put her achievement in perspective.

Karanacs (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Information here about the last runner not very helpful. The first one, Loues, run the race in about 3 hours. Comparing, Revithi's timing does not look that good! Of course, many male athletes withdrew, while she almost finished (she was stopped before entering the Stadium) her unofficial race. Do you think that I should add somewhere Loues' time?--Yannismarou (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps just add a note that only 9 of the 17 male runners finished the race. That will put her accomplishment a little more in perspective. Karanacs (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• I added the info in the caption of Louis' entering the stadium image.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Support This is an interesting article about an obscure person - I was fascinated to learn that there was no women's marathon until the 1980s. Wow! Two questions:

• Her journey took place several days prior to the Olympic marathon, a special race of 40 kilometers (25 mi) invented as part of the athletics program, and based on Michel Bréal's idea of a race from the city of Marathon to the Pnyx. - Wasn't the marathon inspired by the legendary runner who ran from Marathon to Athens after a battle? Awadewit (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yeap, Pheidippides. Breal conceived the idea of an athletic event, being inspired by this legendary race. But it was Breal who proposed the idea. Should I rephrase to make that clear?--Yannismarou (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think that would be a good idea. Awadewit (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• As a matter of fact, I now saw that I already have that in note 4! Like Karanacs, you miss my notes! Seriously, now, I'll transfer the info in the main text for clarification.--Yannismarou (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Blushes. Awadewit (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Tarasouleas suggests that Melpomene and Revithi are the same person, and Martin and Green argue that "a contemporary account referring to Revithi as a well-known marathon could explain the earlier run by a woman over the marathon course—this was by Revithi herself, not Melpomene" - "a well-known marathoner"? Is there a typo here?

• Oups! I think it should be "marathon runner" but let me check the source again. Thanks!--Yannismarou (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, that's it. Corrected.--Yannismarou (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me know when this article passes and I'll add it to Portal:Feminism. Awadewit (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:19, 11 April 2009 [25].

---

Arular

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk)

I initially nominated this article for FA a few weeks ago, but apart from Ealdgyth's customary review of sources (all OK) and Truco's regular review of ref formatting (all OK), it attracted no comments whatsoever. I've therefore given it 10 days or so and am renominating, hopefully it will grab people this time :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments for now from GrahamColm (talk · contribs) On the whole, I am impressed with the quality of the prose, the pace of the article and its comprehensiveness. I have made few edits to remove a little redundancy and I have some more comments:

• OK, I'm old, but the use of "beats" sounds odd to me; does it mean rhythms?
• This sentence seems back-to-front: Punk band The Clash and music from other genres such as Britpop and electroclash, to which she was exposed during her time studying at Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design, also influenced her work on the album.
• There are a few examples of over-stylised writing: "prior to" (before), "stated/stating" (said, explained, reported, wrote), "as well as" (and), also" (this is rarely needed).
• I think "created" artwork is better than "produced" - but this is just a preference I think.
• Does "clearance of samples" mean copyright issues?
• Is "independently" better than "self-released"?
• And how about "received" or "met" instead of "was released to"?

I will keep this page on my watchlist and give my support/oppose later. I would like to see more comments from other editors. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 11:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• All done, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• I loved "elements of" :) Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 11:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding support Graham Colm ^Talk 09:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Tech. Review

• Dabs are up to speed (based on the checker tool in the toolbox)
• External links are not up to speed (based on the checker tool in the toolbox)

• There are 5 dead links that need to be fixed/replaced.

• Ref formatting (based on the WP:REFTOOLS script) is up to speed.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Gah, bloody Pitchfork, changing domains and binning all their older articles just before this FAC :-S Anyway, I've replaced them all now. Bizarrely, one link (this one) is still coming up as dead on the tool, but if you click on it it works absolutely fine?!?!?! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • The tool is "slow" ;)--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) It's pretty good, but there are problems with redundancy that Graham noted above.

• "Arular is the debut album by British musician M.I.A., released in March 2005"-->Arular is the debut album by British musician M.I.A. that was released in March 2005
  • I would prefer that the restrictive clause be used here, i.e., "debut album by British musician M.I.A. that was released in" instead of "debut album by British musician M.I.A., which was released in"; it's stronger, less wordy and eliminates ambiguity. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• Do we really need to link United States?
• "The album was mainly written by M.I.A. and recorded by her, using a Roland MC-505 sequencer/drum machine given to her by long-time friend Justine Frischmann."-->The album was mainly written by M.I.A.; she recorded it using a Roland MC-505 sequencer/drum machine given to her by long-time friend Justine Frischmann.
• "Several collaborators worked on the album"-->Several collaborated on the album
• "incorporates a variety of styles ranging"-->incorporates a styles that range "ranging" implies variety
  • Any reason that you kept "variety"? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Only cack-handed editing :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• "While filming a documentary on Elastica's 2001 tour of the United States, however, she was introduced to the Roland MC-505" "however" implies contradiction, but I'm not seeing any.
• "Musically, the album is influenced by music that " Spot the redundancy.
• More overlinking: "London"?
• "Some tracks drew on the soundtracks of Tamil film music which M.I.A. grew up listening to."-->Some tracks drew on the soundtracks of Tamil film music, which M.I.A. listened to while growing up.
• "vivid, gaudy, lo-fi and deceptively candyfloss." Logical punctuation, quotation mark inside the period.
• "M.I.A. created all the album's artwork herself" More redundancy.
• "Arular was initially intended to be released in September 2004"
• "but the album remained unreleased and at one point it was announced that it had been shelved indefinitely." The passive voice makes the logic here confusing, who made the announcement?
• Websites, such as Metacritic, shouldn't be italicized in the references. Metacritic shouldn't have a capital "C" either.
• "Arular was nominated for the Mercury Prize in the UK,[37] and was named as the best album of the year by Stylus,[38] and was number two on The Village Voice's 33rd annual Pazz & Jop poll for the Best Album of 2005." Classic run-on sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

All sorted I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

All good except for the two that I replied to. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Done those now as well -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Media review: the two concert photos seem fine—appropriately licensed; I fixed the album cover—rationale and size should be fine now; that leaves one concern, the sound clip...

• File:Galang.ogg: why should this clip be used in the article? The fair use rationale is simply weak, claiming it does not hurt the artist's revenue is an untenable defense for fair use. Why is it being used? The clip's caption in the article does not say so, only that it was their first single. The FUR for this piece of media should state why it cannot be taken away from the album article; what are the qualities of the clip that helps the reader understand more about the album and that words cannot accurately convey? Likewise, the caption for the clip in the article should correlate to the FUR. Jappalang (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I've removed it. It wasn't me that put it in and I find it hard to argue with your arguments as to why it shouldn't be allowed under Fair Use -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
    • No more concerns with the media in this article. Jappalang (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose NeutralSupport—1a. Great work so far on the prose. The quality of the prose is alright, but the entire article could use a few touch-up passes. Examples/nitpicks from the first few paras:
  • Is the "2005 in music" in parenthesis really necessary?
  • Redundancy: "it was named one of the best albums of the year by several publications at the end of 2005." Instead of "at the end of 2005", you can replace "the year" with "2005", yielding: "it was named one of the best albums of 2005 by several publications", or something in active voice.
  • Serial comma inconsistency in the lead alone.
  • I'm not sure if "film-making" should be hyphenated.
  • Redundancy: "whose minimalistic approach to music served as a source of inspiration for her" "served as a source of inspiration for her" could be shortened to "inspired her".
  • "To this end she approached Caribbean girls in clubs, enquiring if they would provide vocals for the songs, but without success." I'm pretty sure "enquiring" is spelled "inquiring" in both BrE and AmE, but I could be mistaken. Perhaps worth noting: optional comma opportunity after "to this end", but...given the multiple clauses already present, it may break up the flow a bit.
  • "she began work on the tracks for her debut album by composing the lyrics, melody, and drum beats which she programmed at home on the drum machine." Comma after "which".
  • "Having produced a rough track via trial and error, she next sought to collaborate with other writer-producers whose music had caught her ear, to hone the finished track." "Next" and "other" are redundant in this case. Given the context of that paragraph, you can probably shorten "sought to collaborate with" to "collaborated with". Additional rewording may be optimal...perhaps something like: "After producing a rough track via trial and error, she collaborated with writer-producers whose music had caught her ear.....", though I'd reword "music had caught her ear". That last clause strikes me as awkward in its placement, but I'm probably overanalyzing.
  • "Through these collaborations she sought to produce a diverse mixture of styles and to "[drag] people out of their boxes musically”." I'd like to see a comma after "collaborations".
  • Noticed a few cases of extreme redundancy, such as "various different".
  • A lack of commas after transition words/phrases seems common; you might want to look into that. As for myself, I don't use as many commas as I used to; nevertheless, I still make a conscious effort to use them after transitions.
  • I wouldn't call Christgau a "leading critic"; I'd let the wikilink lead readers to the article to make their own judgment in that regard.
  • These examples stress the need for audits in redundancy and comma consistency. As far as redundancies go, try to strike a balance between succinctness and comprehensiveness. — Deckiller 03:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Many thanks for your comments, I have addressed all the specific points you've raised and will give the article a couple of good sweeps for redundancies and incorrect comma usage over the course of today. Please check back in a few hours :-) Thanks once again for looking at the article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Lots of commas added or taken out as appropriate and quite a few minor tweaks to the prose made, let me know how it looks now...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Great edits. I'm switching to neutral; I'll probably take a final pass myself or ask someone else to. — Deckiller 17:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
          • OK, no problem -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. EDIT: Struck Steve ^{T • C} Some prose and potential sourcing issues. It seems like a large list, but could be resolvable in the timeframe available, so I'll watch this page for your responses:

Lead

• "Arular is the debut album by British musician M.I.A. that was released in March 2005." I know this wording was suggested by another reviewer above, but if there is any way of recasting it to get rid of that unsightly "that was released in" I heartily suggest you do so. One solution would be to eliminate the month, which is mentioned soon after anyway, and move the "2005" to earlier in the statement. "...faced months of delays" also carries a slight ambiguity; it could be read to mean that it faced delays yet ultimately avoided them. That "finally" is probably redundant too. Suggestion only:

  Arular is the 2005 debut album by British musician M.I.A. Originally set for a September 2004 release, the album was delayed due to sample issues. Arular was released in the United States on 22 March 2005..."

• The only other concern here is "issues", an excessively vague word to use when we know the exact cause of the delays. If it can be swapped out for a more useful term without boating the sentence, I strongly advise it.
• "...she recorded it using a Roland MC-505 sequencer/drum machine..." Just to clarify, as I'm unfamiliar with the technology, is the Roland MC-505 something onto which tracks can be recorded? The current wording makes it sound as if it does (consider the same idea with a different subject: "The journalist recorded the interview using a miniature tape recorder.")
• "The album's title is the political code name used by her father, Arul Pragasam, during the Tamil independence movements" The plural on "movements" sounds odd without the additional context provided in the article body; can you recast the sentence in a way that doesn't cause the confusion? e.g. "The album's title is the political code name used by M.I.A's father, Arul Pragasam, during his involvement with the Tamil Tigers" or similar.
• "It was nominated for the Mercury Prize in 2005 and included in the book..." Missing "was"?
• "Arular spawned the singles "Galang", "Sunshowers", and "Bucky Done Gun"." The infobox lists four singles (adding the '05 "Galang" re-release), which might confuse some given the proximity of it to this sentence and without the context provided in the article body.
  • All done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Composition and recording

• "She found the concept of an artist performing without..." The gerund requires this to say "artist's performing" (you wouldn't say "me performing without", but "my performing without"). You may not like how this looks; if so, rephrase to avoid either.
• The second paragraph could use at least one instance of "M.I.A.".
• "After securing a record deal with XL Recordings after Frischmann accidentally played the demo to labelmates, she began..." The repetition of "after" feels clumsy; this could be reworded to eliminate both this and the previous bullet: "M.I.A. secured a record deal with XL Recordings after Frischmann accidentally played the demo to labelmates; she began..."
• Looking more closely at the source for that, "labelmates" is wrong. Frischmann took the demo to Elasitca's management offices to make copies to be sent to prospective labels. Frischmann's manager rang her to ask who the singer on the demo was, and "a record deal with London’s XL Recordings followed in short order."
• "Having produced rough tracks via trial and error, she honed the finished songs in collaboration with writer-producers whose music had caught her ear." According to the first cite, XL Recordings partnered M.I.A. with those producers, rather than it being her choice of those whom she liked.
• "which featured a drum pattern created from the sounds made by toys which M.I.A. had bought in India, further augmented by layers of sounds produced by objects such as pens and mobile phones." The sounds were merely augmented, rather than "further" augmented, as no prior augmentation took place. And should that be "augmented with"? Worth checking.
• "saying 'I just quietly got on with it....I didn't wanna convince anyone it was good. I felt it was much better to prove that I could be an individual.'" The quote should be preceded by a comma in this case, and review WP:ELLIPSES for correct usage.
• The above quote isn't in the cited article.
  • All done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Music and lyrics

• "In an interview with Antics TV, she elaborated on the importance of the West London punk scene..." We don't need to say who carried out the interview, unless it's contentious in some way.
• "in her view" Several usages that are likely redundant; if she said it, it's her view.
• "in a 2004 interview with the magazine Nirali..." Again, unnecessary to say to whom she said this.
• "The song 'Sunshowers'" We've already established that it's a song.
• I can't see any reference in this cite to MTV's insisting that the song carry a disclaimer disavowing references to the PLO.
• "as a whole" Likely redundant.
• Mixed use of curly quotes (”) and straight quotes (").
• "anything as long as it has a beat" {{who}}?
• "In an interview with Exclaim! in 2005..." Again unnecessary to say unless contentious.
  • All done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Artwork

• "using what Spin called..." If there's an article author, his or her name should be used ("what Joe Bloggs of Spin called..."), unless the opinion was in an editorial (i.e. it's the magazine's official stance).
• "Similarly, PopMatters..." Similarly, attribution required.
  • All done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Release

• "was delayed, apparently because..." Apparently? Is that your use of the word, or the source's? If they're sure, so are we.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Promotion and accolades

• "In November 2005 she supported Gwen Stefani at a number of dates on here Harajuku Lovers Tour." Spelling mistake ("here"). Some might cite that as an ambiguity too (whose tour?), despite the presence of "she supported".
• "Washington City Paper" Italicise.
• "both Pitchfork Media and Slant Magazine named Arular the number 4 best album of 2005." Redundant "both", and this could be rendered more concisely ("the fourth best album of").
• "Thom Yorke of alternative rock band Radiohead cited M.I.A.'s 'complete block and chop repeat, chop repeat, chop, not finished' method of music making on Arular as an influence on his own work, saying that it reminded him 'of that thing of just picking up a guitar and the first three chords you write and being like, yep, that's good. Stop. End' as opposed to 'agonizing over the hi-hat sound which seems to happen with programming and electronica a lot of the time. You can feel the pain going on.'" This choppy quotation has to be read a couple of times before getting the gist of what he's saying. I think it would benefit from some heavy paraphrasing.
  • All done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Critical reception

• "Arular met with widespread critical acclaim, scoring 88 on Metacritic." Fine as far as it goes—I cite it myself—but that statement lacks context for anyone unfamiliar with the site and its workings. Here's how I generally word it in film articles:

  Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, reported that reviews were "generally favourable", with an average score of 63 based on 38 reviews.

  This provides the reader with everything they need to understand the score, without having to leave your article.
• "Spin appreciated its fusion of "hip hop's cockiness..." Author attribution required, if there is one.
• "Adam Webb, writing for Yahoo! Music, described the album's style as 'professionally amateurish', but said that '[M.I.A.'s] scattergun approach effortlessly appropriates the music of various cultures and filters them through the most elementary equipment. Dancehall is the primary influence, but also one of many seismic collisions with several other genres....with the results of such displacement and politicisation writ large all over' the album." That's quite a mouthful, could it be paraphrased at all? If you're happy with it as it is, at least put "the album" within square brackets in the quote. Review against WP:ELLIPSES.
• "Rolling Stone found Arular 'weird, playful, unclassifiable, sexy, brilliantly addictive'." Rolling Stone or one of its writers? See also: Billboard, Paste and Q.
  • All done - Spin and Q reviews do not give a specific writer's byline -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

General—throughout

• Logical quoting. Example only: "she felt it '[put] the emphasis on the artist.'") Check for other instances.
  • All such quotes re-jigged to get rid of the square brackets -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, that's my fault, I should have been more specific. I mean the location of the period (either outside or inside quotes depends on how the quote is presented). Steve ^{T • C} 13:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh, OK, seems I got completely the wrong end of the stick. Well, I've had a look through and I think all the full stops are positioned correctly, feel free to let me know if they're not...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Overlinking; consider removing the links if the subject is already linked in the previous section (examples only: Elastica and Justine Frischmann are linked in the lead and in the first section).
  • I was under the impression that anything linked in the lead should always be "re-linked" in the body of the article, irrespective of where it appears?!?!? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll double-check that before I re-read tonight. Steve ^{T • C} 13:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Inconsistent use of "US" and "United States".
  • Done - standardised all to US -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• This link redirects to the site's main page.
  • Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This is what I caught on a first pass. I'm also slightly concerned that two of the three sources I checked for clarification didn't support the statements as written. Though I do understand that it's easily done—disconnecting a cite from a statement—when chopping and changing and copyediting in preparation for FAC. Look out for others. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 19:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Blimey, you're right, that is quite a list :-) I'll crack on with it today though, check back in about 12 hours time to see how I've got on..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

All points now addressed, as far as I can see, apart from double-checking that all the sources are in the right place and correctly support the statements -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've now been through and checked every reference and am confident that all are in the right place and support the statements against which they are placed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Impressed by the speed at which you tackled these. I'm striking the oppose, and will consider a support after a third and fourth read through tonight. Nice work, Steve ^{T • C} 15:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I think most of the redundancies and ambiguities have been eliminated, as have the sourcing mix-ups (which were my main concerns), so I'm happy to support this. It's maybe still overlinked, but that's nothing to continue to oppose on. One last thing, the lead talks about reggaeton influences, which aren't mentioned in the article body. Otherwise, nice work. Steve ^{T • C} 10:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Reggaeton replaced in the lead with punk rock, which is mentioned in the body. Many thanks for your assistance and support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Leaning toward support—I'm about to make a final sweep for lingering redundancies and prose glitches myself. — Deckiller 02:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Note—there still seems to be some inconsistency regarding comma style, but I'm going to leave it alone. — Deckiller 02:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support— there's still some overlinking, but the article is solid overall. — Deckiller 02:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for your support. For clarity, given the huge length of this FAC, may I strike out your "neutral" !vote above....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:19, 11 April 2009 [26].

---

M249 squad automatic weapon

Nominator(s): Patton^t/c

I withdrew the last FAC for this article because I was afraid the concerns were too many to address during the FAC. Anyway, I feel I have addressed all of them and am nominating it for featured status again. It's come a long way; I have created a "operational history" section and incorporated the reception into it. Thanks in advance to all reviewers.--Patton^t/c 13:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(Nom restarted. Old nom. Raul654 (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

Images reviewed, outstanding questions on sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I've satisfied the sources concerns now.--Patton^t/c 18:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The oppose over referencing

Comments by Peripitus (talk · contribs), note that I've only read thoroughly to the end of the Development section. Not finished reading through yet - will finish in a day or so. Images look all good and have appropriate (free) licences, Referencing looks good (though I'm not keen on the use of titles in the notes sections...just for the sake of neatness) *Acronyms (and jargon) need to be consistent, explained at first use and minimised. I think that all acronym use needs to be checked for these issues, eg:

• • new 5.56 mm LMG - think that this needs "caliber" as this is the first text use of the term.
  • reference to studies of non-5.56 mm cartridges, it is already clear that 5.56 is being talked about and this is perhaps better as reference to studies of other caliber light machine guns
  • HK lobbied - Full company name needed on first use
  • FN - same again. Though it is expanded in the lead I think the first use in the text has to be a full name with acronym in brackets.
  • built in the FNH factory - should this be the FN factory ? - all been dealt with - Peripitus (Talk) 12:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Some parts of the text are unclear.
  • Were Rock Island Arsenal awarded a dev contract or did they leap off on their own ? - fixed - Peripitus (Talk) 12:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Development contracts for the SAW - were all of these for the 6mm cartridge only ?
  • Not made clear who designates the experimental models (eg: XM233) - fixed - Peripitus (Talk) 12:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • What is the XM249E1 variant and how does it differ from the XM249. Is this important enough to include ? Which version was the final M249 ? - better now - Peripitus (Talk) 12:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • was phased out in the 1950s, as the M14 was scheduled to replace it - does this mean the phase out happened while the M14 was replacing it or simply as a consequence of the replacement schedule ? perhaps better as was phased out and replaced by the M14 in the 1950s - this is fixed but I'm not sure that the text reads well yet - Peripitus (Talk) 12:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The official adoption and standardization took place on February 1, 1982. - does standardization refer to it being published as an army standard or does this mean something different ? If published as a standard can this be made more explicit and hence clearer ? Appears fixed - Peripitus (Talk) 12:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • (Addition) - article notes the sustained fire rate but also mentions the quick change barrels. Usually then army doctrine specifies a higher rate of fire with some specified period of barrel changes. I think that having this information would bring the importance of the barrel change notes into focus.

*Some text issues involving convoluted wording and redundant words. (Don't count this as gospel - brilliant prose is not my forte)

• • It has a quick-change barrel so the gunner can rapidly replace an overheated or jammed barrel can be rapidly replaced by the gunner
  • There are tense problems at the start of the Development section. eg: The M2 is was a large-caliber heavy machine gun. Both are were very heavy weapons. Both the M2 and M60 still exist !. First three sentences of this paragraph need some work
  • Sometime before the end of Fiscal Year 1972 (ending June 30, 1972). Unless fiscal year is critical for understanding isn't this better as Prior to July 1972 as it is clear it has to happen after March 1972 from the proceeding sentences.
  • There were also In addition to these problems, there were complaints that the front sight required special adjustment tools
  • Neither of these designs was finalized March 1972, when by the time the Army published the specifications document for the planned SAW in March 1972
  • Congress deleted funds for the M249 from the Fiscal Year 1986 defense budget, then retroactively set aside the program's prior year's funds for other purposes, including retirement and pay raises - all dealt with - Peripitus (Talk) 12:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• One information question I couldn't readily see the answer to.....How many have been made ?

- Peripitus (Talk) 11:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Should there be mention that the belts are disintigrating ones? It certainly should be mentioned that the M249 is designed to take 20/30 round M16 magazines (or so the glorious internet tells me) - Peripitus (Talk) 12:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to mention that the belts are disintegrating, as all metal ones are, the only ones that don't disintegrate are the old fabric ones. The article already mentions in numberous places that the M249 can use M16 mgazines. As for production figures, I haven't found any at all in books or on the internet.--Patton^t/c 14:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are non-disintegrating metal belts in current service. They are in common use in Russian designs like the RPD and PK. --D.E. Watters (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Everything in section 1 and 3 corrected; Patton, you're welcome :P. I'll leave the middle bit to you as I don't know the technical stuff. Ironholds (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a mllion Ironholds! Peripitus, thanks for your review! I've corrected the point from section 2. Dunno what the XM249E1 was, someone else added that sometime during this FAC, wasn't there at the start. Have clarified the M14 bit. The M14 wasn't actually schedueled to replace it as a SAW/LMG, it just had an automatic mode so the Army didn't think a new SAW/LMG was needed. "Standardisation" was also slipped in there somehow, wasn't there at the start of the FAC. I look forward to your review of the rest of the article.--Patton^t/c 21:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

1) The XM249E1 was specifically mentioned in the FY 1981 Department of the Army Historical Summary. "The Fabrique National (FN) XM249 weapon was modified to incorporate the changes recommended during the selection process. Testing of the improved weapon (XM249E1) and ammunition (XM855 and XM856) began in June 1981 at Aberdeen Proving Ground."

2) Actually, the heavy barrel version of the M14 (the M15) was intended to replace the M1918 BAR. However, the M15 was never put into production as they figured a M14 equipped with a bipod could perform the job just as well. The M14/M15 were advertised as replacing the M3 submachinegun, M2 carbine, M1 rifle, and M1918 BAR.

3) Standardizing means that the item has been "type classified" as a "Standard" item. In other words, it has been determined to be either acceptable for introduction into the U.S. Army inventory or can made acceptable without any further developmental effort prior to fielding. In contrast, an item can be adopted but technically remain type classified as a "Limited Procurement" item. It is probably too technical for use in this article. However, a discussion of "type classification" might be a worthwhile article on its own. --D.E. Watters (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Tech. Review

Dabs (checker tool)

• There are some self-redirects, I don't know if they are intentional or not, if they aren't they need to be removed.

• ..are up to speed as well.--₮RUCӨ 20:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

External links (checker tool)

• ..are found up to speed

Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS)

• ..are found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 01:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! The M249 squad automatic weapon self redirect is actually a link from the infobox to the variants section. The Mk 46 Mod 0 self redirect is in the navigation template at the bottom of the page, not in the article itself.--Patton^t/c 12:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay, that's what I wanted to know. Cheers.--₮RUCӨ 20:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support, as I did before. Ironholds (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Image review: no issues. Jappalang (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

References—Since Sandy requested a check, what makes the following sites/sources reliable?

• Arsenal-bg.com
• Jane's
• U. S. Army Board Study Guide By ArmyStudyGuide.com

--Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Arsenal is a Bulgarian weapons manufacturer. They should have a pretty good grip on what their own products weigh.
• Jane's Information Group is the oldest publisher of defense related books and magazines in existence, and probably the largest. They can trace their history back 111 years. In particular, Jane's International Defence Review is a well respected periodical. It has been in publication for over 40 years. --D.E. Watters (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll reiterate. If Jane's isn't reliable on weapons/ships/planes, nothing will be. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be like questioning whether or not The Times is a reliable source for news. Ironholds (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And ArmyStudyGuide.com? --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That I'm not sure about; it appears to be an unofficial guide to passing Army tests. Patton, can you tell us which bits you used it in? Maybe we could find references for them from a more reliable source. Ironholds (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that he only used it to establish the "basic load" of ammunition carried by a M249 gunner. --D.E. Watters (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's not important, then the refs to the study guide can be removed. If its important, there should be other sources to back it up. Either way I'm not seeing the reliability of this unofficial army publication. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Reiterating Support from previous FAC. This article is comprehensive, adequately covers its subject, and presents its information in clear and concise prose. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments, some from before restart (but updated in any case):

• Regarding cites of "U.S. Army - Report of the M16 Rifle Review Panel — Volume 11, Appendix 10 - The Army Small Arms Program": I believe I found this document online here; if this is indeed correct, please add the link. In any case, the OCLC number is 227968366.

• Regarding Note 48, "Kelly, Al (2007). M249 Squad automatic weapon. U.S. Army. Presentation at the National defence review": Are you citing a video or a paper of the presentation? I haven't been able to locate this online. In the interests of verifiability, let's clearly tell readers in what format this is available, and where.

• Regarding Note 47, "Smith, Jim (15 May 2003). Operation Iraqi Freedom PEO Soldier Lessons Learned. U.S. Army.": Isn't this available here, here and here? Also, it appears to be a ten-page document; if that is the case, the citation should present the title within quotes, not italics.

• There is an item listed in References that is never cited ("Miller, David (2003). The Illustrated Directory of 20th Century Guns. Zenith Imprint..."). Is there a missing short-form cite, or should this item be removed from the References?

This is still listed as a Reference, but not cited. Maralia (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Another item in References needs clarification ("Jones, Colonel Charles A. (December 12, 2005). "Phased out in 1960s, M14 was ‘very reliable’". The Lore of the Corps."). What is 'The Lore of the Corps'? If it's a journal, it needs to be italicized, and we need the name of the publisher.

I note that you added italics, but we can't evaluate the source without knowing the publisher. Maralia (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a magazine called the lore of the corps. AfAIK it's not printed by the USMC but is independent.--Patton^t/c 19:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You've used "Lastname – Title, p x" for short-form cites. I can't say that I like it, but to each his own. They weren't consistent, though—some of the endashes were hyphens—so I've standardized to endash for those throughout the Notes.

Almost there. Maralia (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've cleanup up what I could. What's wrong the PEO soldier lessons learned cite? I don't see why it needsto be in quotes rather than italics when that's the name of the report. Thanks a million for you review anyway, you've done loads :-).--Patton^t/c 17:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've updated my comments above. Per WP:MOSITALICS, italics are used for long works; the titles of short works (such as papers) are presented in quote marks. I've made the change on the Kelly and Smith References and cites. A couple issues remain above. Maralia (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe this comment is addressed.--Patton^t/c 16:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Following up on my last bullet point above, I tried to find information about a magazine named The Lore of the Corps in order to evaluate whether it would meet WP:RS. I was not able to find any magazine by that name. From this, it appears the piece was in fact printed in the Army Times. Please fix, and be extra careful next time to take full notes on each source; we have to provide enough information for readers to look them up. That was my last remaining issue from the list above, but I'm not quite prepared to support as it's been several weeks since I read through the full article; will give it another read after I make it through my watchlist. Maralia (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose 1c, per no action taken on demonstrating reliability of web source above. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Addressed. Good job you saw it because the figure it gave is apparently wrong ;-)--Patton^t/c 16:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Okey dokey, that takes care of surface reading of sources for me. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, tending to oppose Support Concerns addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhatfield (talk • contribs) 22:14, April 9, 2009

This article fails the copyedit test. For example:

• "Neither design was finalized by March 1972, when the Army published the specifications document for the planned SAW.[14]" is repeated. This should not be picked up at FAC stage and throws out serious question marks about the rest of the editing.
• Short, choppy sentences need to be fixed, eg. "The HK XM262 reportedly came a close second.[21] In September, FN was awarded a "maturity phase" contract for further development of the XM249.[22] Testing of the new XM249 began in June 1981.[23] The official adoption took place on February 1, 1982."
• Sentences that are too long need to be fixed, eg. "Because army doctrine required troops to use a rifle's semi-automatic mode on most occasions to increase accuracy and conserve ammunition, the M14 and M16 rifles used by the U.S. Army had not been designed with sustained automatic fire in mind, and overheated or jammed regularly." Also, avoid starting sentences with "Because..."; "Due to..." is preferred.
• Under-linked. For example in the first paragraph alone: automatic (as in fire), firepower, machinegun, squad, volume of fire & rifle. Paragraph two: jammed, bipod, tripod & magazine. Also "Picatinny rails were added to the feed cover and forearm for the mounting of optics, lasers, vertical foregrips". Now you have even lost me - Picatinny rail? Look for terms that may be unknown to a ten year old and link them: we are here to educate.
• Innapropriate language: "Soldiers are generally satisfied with the weapon's performance, though there have been many reports of clogging with dirt and sand." Rather choose some of the (excellent) information from the Operational history.
• "U.S. Army soldier holds an M249 SPW in Iraq." I see that this is the special purpose, but that is not clear in the text.
• Lastly, "The U.S. Army does, however, want to replace aging M249s with new SAWs." should be "...newer SAW models"

I marked this as "Comment, tending to oppose" because if I remember correctly a single oppose may stall the entire FAC process indefinitely and while these concerns are serious, I don't intend to block the FAC. It is unlikely that I will be able to check editing in the near future. The content is very good, and I strongly support the effort to improve all our weapon system articles. Dhatfield (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Points 1-4 and 7 fixed. Someone more specialised (patton?) will have to do 5 and 6. Ironholds (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ironholds. Have fixed 6, though I don't quite understand point 5.--Patton^t/c 20:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The intention was that you generalise the above comments to re-look at the whole article. Examples of remaining problems:

• "Studies of improved 5.56 mm ammunition, with better performance characteristics, began.[11] The earliest reference to studies of other caliber cartridges for the LMG did not appear until 1969.[12] In July 1970, the U.S. Army finally approved development of an LMG, with no specified calibre. At this time, the nomenclature "Squad Automatic Weapon" (SAW) was introduced.[8] Actual design of alternative cartridges for the LMG did not begin until July 1971." Five sentences where two or three would flow much better."
• You have a "rior" in para 3, Development.
• Design details is still massively underlinked.
• With respect to point 5, in the introduction I would prefer "Lieutenant Colonel Jim Smith of the U.S. Army spoke positively of the M249, claiming that it "provided the requisite firepower at the squad level as intended", but a report entitle Lessons Learned in Afghanistan found that 54% of SAW gunners had problems maintaining their weapons in the desert environment". Something like that. It sounds better than "some guys said it's cool, but it breaks".

I trust you will follow through on this. Overall, good content, references and images. Vote changed to support.Dhatfield (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment—are there any other outstanding issues? If so, I'll keep this on the "urgent" template. It looks like it could use further auditing for redundancies ("two different gas port sizes", "partially replace the M249 in its service.") and other glitches (overlinking, some awkward/suboptimal phrasing, etc.). Would it be possible to contact another outside copy-editor to eliminate lingering issues? Copy-editing is a team effort that requires multiple passes. — Deckiller 03:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't mind doing a pass of copyediting myself, but that should be approved by the regular authors, especially during FAC. Dhatfield (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Per WP:MOSNUM, why is the x in 5.56x45 mm NATO not spaced? Why are reports in WP:ITALICS? (Books, journals, periodicals and newspapers are italicized.) Page ranges in citations should use WP:ENDASHes, not hyphens, I'll ask User:Brighterorange to run his script to fix them, but please note for next time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:19, 11 April 2009 [27].

---

John L. Helm

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)}

I have recently done a total rewrite of this article. Following the rewrite, I had a very good copy editor go over the text. The article just passed GA, and I believe should be able to make FA. To my knowledge, I have consulted all major sources on the subject. I look forward to your reviews, and hopefully, your support. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 02:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Tech. Comment -- Dabs and external links (checker tools), and ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS) found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 02:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Not that I was the GA reviewer, and brought up the age of some of the sources on the GAN page. You can see Acdixon's reply there about the fact that little has been written about his recently. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Simply excellent, but I do have a few nitpicks:

• "studied with noted educator Duff Green." I suppose you couldn't be more specific? Was he a tutor, professor, or just a plain teacher.

• The source doesn't really say. The Wikipedia article on Green calls him a "school teacher", but Kentucky's Governors calls him a lawyer, so perhaps he read law with him. I really don't know, so I've used the generic "educator".

• Better to play it safe than risk being wrong. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• "in the office Samuel Haycraft" Is there a missing "of"?

• Yep. Thanks.

• "There were no lawyers in this new county" You just mentioned that the county was formed, so obviously it was new. Maybe "There were no lawyers in this county yet..."

• Done.

• "one of the youngest members ever to serve in "

• Done.

• "1827 and 1830, then was re-elected every year from 1833 to 1837" Missing conjunction, I think.

• I've added an "and" although I'm not sure if it's necessary grammatically.

• "The two were not reconciled until 1852" Simplify tense: "The two did not reconcile until 1852"

• Done.

• Per WP:DASH, em dashes should not be spaced.

• I thought I used all en dashes. I can't find any occurrences of &mdash;.

• "Logan County — many of whom he had personally sold stock to — to" Dabomb87 (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. Fixed now.

• There are inconsistencies in the page notation, multiple pages should be denoted with pp. and single pages with p.

• Good catch. I think I got them all now.

• "a number of other citizens " "a number of"-->several

• Done.

• "With the state's courts closed on account of the war" With is usually a poor connector. Maybe "Because the state's courts were closed on account of the war". Dabomb87 (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks for the review. Let me know if there are other things that need to be addressed, or the above haven't been addressed sufficiently. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Helm was classified as a southern sympathizer by federal authorities." Convert this to active voice.

• Done.

• "September, 1862" I don't believe the comma is necessary.

• Done.

• "sufferage" Is this a word? Are you referring to suffrage?

• Yep. Bad spelling on my part.

• "eleven one-year terms" Numbers over ten should be spelled out, particularly because these are adjacent quantities.

• Done.

• "When Helm was 14 his father fell on hard financial times and Helm returned to work on the family farm" I think it would helpe readability here if a comma was inserted after "14".

• Done.

• "his father's debt's " Surely you mean "his father's debts"?

• Yep. Fixed now.

• "he built a home there which he " Two options: "he built a home there that he " or "he built a home there, which he"

• Fixed.

• "act granting debtors "-->act that granted debtors

• Done.

• "In 1843 the Kentucky General Assembly proposed to create a new county from part of Hardin County and name it Helm County in honor of John L. Helm." Another instance in which I think a comma would help, after "1843".

• Done.

• "death bed" I've usually seen it written as one word, although perhaps this is an English variant?

• Not sure if it is a variant, but I have no problem changing it as suggested.

• "Alderman" Wikilink, not a very common term (one usually sees "council member")

• Done.

• "and also succeeded in selling"

• Done.

• "introduced legislation that called for " Legislation doesn't really "call".

• Reworded. How does that sound?

• Better. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Think that's it. Mostly proofreading stuff. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the careful reading. Hope you can now support the article's promotion. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Suppport, this is very good. I was really only left with one question:
  • "After nine ballots Helm withdrew, and Letcher was elected speaker." Do we know 9 out of how many? That would provide a bit more context. 9 out of 20 seems gentlemanly, but 9 out of 100 seems babyish, if you see my point.

--Laser brain (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the slow response; my laptop charger died and my access to the Internet has been limited. The source says that Helm withdrew after nine ballots "whereupon" the House chose Letcher over Morehead. The implication seems to be that it was the very next ballot. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Very well-done. Karanacs (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Images:
  • File:CSMorehead.jpg- you need a date here, else we can't verify that it's PD.
    • The Kentucky Historical Society's web site says the date of creation and author are unknown. This is the only image of Morehead I've been able to find anywhere. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, we can't use undocumented images, so it will have to be removed. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I've removed it from this article. Any chance it could stay (at least on the article about Morehead himself) under some type of fair use claim? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Possibly, but you have to meet WP:NFCC, so you're going to have to prove it was previously published or released (shouldn't be hard, but just follow it precisely.) --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • File:JohnLaRueHelm.jpg- no author or date here, either.
    • Added the author and date here based on Kentucky Historical Society web site. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • A fully filled out template like {{Description}} would be nice. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The thick black borders around the image are somewhat pointless and distracting, but that's an aesthetic quibble. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
    • This is shaping up to be a hectic week, but if I have time (and my replacement laptop charger comes in) I may see if I can crop that off. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Hope you don't mind, but I've gone ahead and cropped that; I agree it looks better without the border, and if you want me to do the same with the Crittenden image, let me know. Steve ^{T • C} 15:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. EDIT: Struck. Steve ^{T • C} I considered a support with added suggestions, as I don't think it's far off at all, but there are just a few prose issues, seemingly concentrated in the first couple of sections. It would be a shame if they weren't tackled before this disappears from FAC. Details follow. Steve ^{T • C}

  Lead

  • "was the eighteenth and twenty-fourth governor of Kentucky. Though he twice held the office of governor, his service in that office totaled less than fourteen months." Seems to be telling us the same information twice (that he was governor two times). Consider merging or making the second sentence a lot shorter (e.g. "His two terms totaled less than fourteen months.")
    • Done.
  • "The Whigs won the general election and Helm was elevated to governor on July 31, 1850, when Crittenden resigned to accept an appointment as United States Attorney General in the cabinet of President Millard Fillmore." Slightly long sentence that could benefit from recasting to read more concisely. Example: "in President Millard Fillmore's cabinet."
    • Done.
  • "Although he openly opposed secession..." This is a borderline Easter egg link; the link points to Secession in the United States rather than secession. In any event, the sentence lacks context for anyone not au fait with that period of American history; the mention of the civil war only comes after this point. It wouldn't hurt to spell it out.
    • I've tried to improve this.
  • "Helm was labeled a Southern sympathizer at the outbreak of the American Civil War." By whom? The article body says, but it still begs the question up here.
    • Clarified.
  • "He was too weak to travel to Frankfort for his inauguration, so state officials traveled to his home and administered the oath of office there on September 3, 1867." The "there" is weak. Consider rewording to remove it, e.g. "He was too weak to travel to Frankfort for his inauguration, so state officials administered the oath of office at his home on September 3, 1867."
    • Done.

  Early life

  • Why does it use "John L. Helm" instead of "Helm" throughout the section? There are better ways of differentiating between Helm and his family members, and it would make the opening sentence less choppy.
    • Agree it's awkward, but with so many Helms being mentioned, I thought this was necessary. I've tried to clean it up some.
  • Speaking of which, it could be improved by eliminating the "twenty-two years later" statement; the dates are mentioned, so there's no need for this. It could instead be rendered more concisely by splitting and then merging with the second statement about Helm's birth, e.g. "...Hardin County, where John L. Helm was born on..."
    • Done.
  • "better-paying" Better-paid? Maybe both are OK.
    • I think both work, but it's not a big deal if you insist on making this change.
  • Should "Meade County Attorney" be "Meade county attorney" or "Meade's county attorney"? While you'd use capitals in the title "County Attorney John L. Helm", you wouldn't in "John L. Helm, the county attorney".
    • Yeah, seems like all of these rules are running together in this sentence. I've adopted your suggestion of "Meade's county attorney". It still seems a little awkward to me, but better than before.
  • "the Helm homestead where he was born." Redundant; we've already been told this.
    • Done.
  • "neighboring Hardin County..." Redundant; already told that too.
    • Done.
  • "Between 1832 and 1840 he built a home there that he called "Helm Place", and which remained his home for the rest of his life." Further redundancies; consider combining elements to make something along the lines of "Between 1832 and 1840 he built "Helm Place" there, which remained his home for the rest of his life." This presents the same information in far fewer words. It could even be merged with the previous sentence to eliminate that unsightly "there".
    • I thought it was necessary to identify "Helm Place" as a house, which was the reason for the awkward sentence, but looking back on it, I think it sounds OK the way I've edited it now.

  Political career

  • "Reeling from the financial Panic of 1819..." The capitalisation on "Panic" doesn't work if preceded by "financial"; consider removal of "financial", or recasting the sentence if you think it needs the context of the word. Alternatively, pipe it into the wikilink.
    • Done.

  President of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad

  • "some observers" Do we know who? If Klein doesn't say, fair enough.
    • I've already returned that book to the library, but best I recall, Klein doesn't specify.
  • "On February 4, 1860, two members of the company's board of directors wrote a letter requesting Helm's resignation and claiming they had voted for his re-election as president of the company with the understanding that he would resign when the main line between Louisville and Nashville was finished." A little long? It needs a breather at some point, e.g. "...resignation; they claimed..."
    • Yes, much better.
  • "But the rift between Helm and the directors continued to widen." It's seldom good to begin a sentence with "But".
    • Corrected.
  • No real need for that "Nevertheless".
    • Eliminated.

  Civil War and second term as governor

  • "were arrested by Colonel Knox." Who is Colonel Knox? He isn't mentioned before or after this statement, so can't be that relevant to this article.
    • The source only says "Colonel Knox". Because of this, I left him out initially. Then a reviewer said he wanted to know more about the forces who arrested Helm, so I added this as the only indication I had of who the forces were. I was hoping someone familiar with this time period could provide a wikilink, even if it's a red link.
  • "of his son, Benjamin..." Twice said in a short space. The first time in the section is enough to introduce him as Helm's son, and simply "Benjamin" thereafter will do.
    • Done.

  General—throughout

  • Inconsistent use of numerals: "twenty-two", "24", etc.
  • Inconsistent use of comma/no-comma after opening "[In/On] [date]".
  • Review WP:DASH. Found hyphen used where endash should be. Check for other instances.
    • I'll have to get to these later, since they will take some time to identify in the prose. Not having my laptop (now have determined that my charger was lost in the mail) has made it harder to get back to Wikipedia with regularity. Hopefully, I can get these addressed in the next couple of days.
      • I think I've caught all of these, so don't worry about it. Steve ^{T • C} 15:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• This long list makes the writing seem worse than it is; these are largely minor issues that should be resolvable quickly. The only other recommendation I have is to make further sweeps for redundancies; there are still a few spots that might benefit. Otherwise, it's an interesting read and seemingly well-researched. I'll watchlist this page, so no need to ping me if and when these issues are tackled/rebutted. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 22:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. Let me know if any of my fixes above are insufficient, and I'll try to get to the remaining ones soon. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Your fixes/rebuttals check out fine by me. Striking oppose. Nice work, Steve ^{T • C} 15:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:26, 7 April 2009 [28].

---

Murray Chotiner

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets FA criteria. I've been doing considerable work on the article, and I think it is a compelling story of an enigmatic man who is known as an adviser to Nixon, in first this would be the first Nixon aide to reach FA (unless you count Pat!) Also, the 100th anniversary of Chotiner's birth is coming up in October, so no time like the present. I even went to Chotiner's grave (about five miles from my home) and took pix. The article heavily relies on fee articles, but that's just one of those things. Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• TEcH. Review

• Disambiguation links and External links are all up to speed, checked with the toolbox checker tools.
• Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS) is found up to speed

• The following ref name is used more than once to name a ref, when it should only be naming one specific ref

• vin

--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that has been fixed now.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: A couple of prose niggles:-
  • Lead: can you do something about three successive sentences in the second paragraph beginning "Chotiner..."?
  • Lead: the name Chotiner is annoyingly over-repeated in the final paragraph, too. A little rephrasing will fix this.

I imagine Voorhis will be coming up soon and I'll look forward to that. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've made those changes and caught a couple of typos, hopefully the last. Yes, Voorhis is coming up, but as I have one of his books on order, and it is next in line at GAN, I figured I'd hold off for a bit. Hope you will strike your comments and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I better read the article first. Will report back soon. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Further comments:

• General: A most interesting account of a shadowy figure who exists around the edges of most Nixon biographies and the Watergate books. Good to see some solid flesh and bones. The prose needs a bit of attention, though. The habit encountered—and now corrected—in the lead, of over-repetition of the name Chotiner, continues in the article (sometimes, other names are over-repeated, too). It's not just a case of substituting with pronouns, sometimes rephrasing is necessary. For example the inelegant "Chotiner initially practiced law with Jack Chotiner" could easily be replaced by saying that the Chotiner brothers practiced law together, especially as the name Chotiner appears twice more later in the same sentence. I suggest that the rest of the article is thoroughly checked out for the recurrence of this fault—this could have been done if the article had been to peer review. I always wonder about the wisdom of making FAC the first formal review of an article.
• A problem that occurs in many biographical articles is defining what constitutes "early life". In this case the section takes us to 1946 when Chotiner was 37. This is not all early life. It might be "Early life and career", or you might split the section, but it shouldn't be left as it is. Likewise, not all the "Rise of Richard Nixon (1946-56)" section deals with the rise of Nixon - see Chotiner personal details at the end. Also, I'd say that as Nixon was elected vice president in 1952, he had "risen" by then. The date range in the title might suggest that he was not prominent before 1956.
• The following are examples of sentences that I found troublesome:
  • "Albert Chotiner, a cigar maker by trade, managed a chain of movie theatres in California, and soon left the family, leaving Murray and his older brother, Jack Chotiner, as the sole support of their mother."
    • First, I think this is two sentences; the first "and" connects unrelated clauses
    • "He soon left the family". The last date reference we have is 1920. If Chotiner Sr left the family soon after 1920, it is hard to see how Murray, aged 11 or 12, can have been one of the "sole supports" of their mother. Do we have nothing more precise about when the father left?
    • Is it possible for two people to be "sole" supports?
  • "Chotiner coined the campaign slogan, "WE WILL NOT SURRENDER" for Knowland, implying that Democratic challenger Will Rogers, Jr. would do just that." First, why the caps? Second, it's not at all clear what Rogers was going to surrender. Rather than end the sentence with "would do just that", you should explain what "just that" is.
  • "Chotiner helped persuade Eisenhower's backers to advocate for Nixon, rather than Knowland, as General Eisenhower's running mate." As the paragraph is mainly about the vice presidential nomination, the last five words are pretty redundant. I would cut them, thereby avoiding another repetition.
  • "Chotiner had previously suggested that Nixon run a "permanent campaign" throughout his six-year senatorial term, avoiding the need for such a fund." Not clear what this means - why would the need for such a fund be avoided by this action?
  • In the "Death and legacy" section, first sentence, the words "in fact" are redundant. I wonder, too, whether the words "and legacy" are redundant, since he doesn't seem to have one - I'd hardly say "Chotiner's law" qualifies as a legacy, and I think you should clarify that it is an informal law, like Murphy's or Sod's, rather than a statute.
  • Top points for visiting and photographing Chotiner's grave – but while you were there you might have cleaned up the stonework so the rest of us can read the inscription.

I have picked up the odd typo. On the whole this is a strong article which I am inclined to support when the above points have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The issues will take probably until the weekend, as I am presently away and will not have the sources with me until Saturday. A few quick things. The capped slogan is as per the original. I think the cemetery would have a fit if I started bringing cleaning chemicals there, so I guess that's the best I can do. We had to have one free image, that will have to do. I'm trying to find out more about Chotiner's childhood, but will rephrase to avoid the point. It begs the question of why his mother didn't work, but the Morris book says his mother was "difficult", there may have been illness. Anyhow, I won't get to most of this until tomorrow and will finish on the weekend. I'm going to delete the whole Knowland for VP thing, because I now have a source that says that Knowland was offered the job and turned it down. I am going to restructure the 1946-1960 part of the article to make it align with Nixon's jobs. Congress, VP. It is the best way to do it, I think, and will of course modify the headings.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Take your time: my remarks about the stonework were intended as graveyard humour.Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I know, I addressed it in case anyone didn't get it. Progress report: I've addressed all but the "WE WILL NOT SURRENDER" (I want to quote the passage from the book and get reaction), the permanent campaign (that was put in by someone else and I'm going to consult references) and I've left it as "Death and legacy", it is a fairly conventional way of ending an article, and I don't have a better title offhand. "Death" seems kinda short.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

On reference to Richard Nixon's memoirs, which was the cite inserted by another editor to support the info about the campaigning through the six year term (I modified the information when it was inserted, to what I thought it meant), there is not enough info to see exactly what Chotiner was proposing, so i am deleting the passage about the permanent campaign.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The exact language, which I heavily borrowed from due to the same uncertaintly as to what he meant that you had, page 292 of Morris, is "In 1946 he (Chotiner) was able to work only part-time on the Nixon campaign because he was also helping to manage William Knowland's reelection to the Senate. For that run he had coined the slogan "WE WILL NOT SURRENDER," a motto in which he managed, characteristically, to convey that the Democratic opponent, Will Rogers Jr., contemplated doing just that." I can certainly switch it to lower case, and put a comment in that the original was all caps. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support: My main points, detailed above, have beeen largely addressed in a genial fashion, though I'd still like to know what Rogers was being accused, however cryptically, of surrendering. I could go on quibbling about unimportant things, but I'll save us the time. This is a comprehensive and well-researched article that illuminates some murky corners of presidential politics to the great shock of us innocent Brits - do the likes of Chotiner still operate? While you're in this genre, why not try Dick Tuck next? Brianboulton (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I've thought about Tuck, but so much of what Tuck did is disputed it would be hard to write a factual article. While Chotiner is gone, I suspect he influenced negative campaigning for all time, though he did not begin it. Thanks for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.

I fixed this for you. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Normally, you put newspaper article titles in quotation marks (not italics) and the newspaper itself in italics. While I won't oppose over this (since you're consistent within the page) it's distinctly different than most and you may get folks objecting later because of it.

You don't need to have them in bold .. I fixed it for you. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll clean up my other articles based on this, when I have some time.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.panshin.com/critics/Perry/perryA.htm
  • The Richardson, Darcy A Nation Divided book source (published by iUniverse, a self-publishing company)
• Current ref 34 (Smith, Howard K..) is lacking a last access date.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing in the Monad article that isn't in the LA Times article, other than the fact that Heinlein turned to Scince Fiction, which is hardly contentious. I will take it out if you want, but it seems to me to be helpful to have. I'll leave it up to you. I'll dispose of the other issues later in the day, can't do it now. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've made all your changes, Ealdgyth. I removed both refs. I had a backup ref for the 1938 race. I removed the info that people thought he, not Mitchell, was running the Nixon campaign, because I have no backup there. I'll read through my Nixon refs in a bit and see if I can find anything. It is a tidbit, but we can easily do without it. Who's next?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

oppose - The copyrighted image File:Chotiner.jpg is unjustified, for an individual with involment at such high levels in the US, it is implausible there is not a free image taken by the US federal government Fasach Nua (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought. I will look for one, but I'd point out to you that Chotiner was a Federal employee for less than two years, and was not an original member of the Nixon White House staff. Therefore, there may not be one, or it may not be available with ordinary effort, and it may not be possible to act on your oppose. Note that for much of his career, Chotiner was a campaign official, and the Federal government would not routinely take photographs of such officials. I will make a serious effort to find one, though. Meanwhile, can you point at some language in the policy on images which supports your oppose?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd also point out that of Chotiner's three fellow White House counsels of the time, two have articles, Charles Colson and Clark Mollenhoff, and neither have free use pictures. While other crap exists, of course, it is evidence that people at Chotiner's level did not regularly have free use photos made. And of course Chuck Colson was far more prominent than Chotiner ...--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, Mattisse has been kind enough to add on to the fair use rationale of that image, and I've fine tuned that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have searched the internet by any means I know how, and I find no free use picturs of Chotiner.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I have asked Fasach Nua to revisit his oppose, he has refused. The oppose is not consistent with WP:WIAFA; as I can't prove a negative, I will ask that the oppose be disregarded as unactionable. That being said, I'll look into offline possibilities. I'm not holding my breath though.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I should also note that today's TFA, Barthélemy Boganda has only a fair use image, plus a user-created image of his country's flag. I really don't think that Fasach Nua's oppose is very well made.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to revisit my oppose, and after careful consideration I did, [29], and found the original assessment to be valid and the oppose stood. I do not appreciate being misrepresented in this forum. As for one particular article using copyrighted material, it should be noted that FU is based on WP:NFCC which deals with contribution and education, and nothing so meaningless as a quota system for non-free content. Fasach Nua (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

When I said revisit, I really meant "change" or "withdraw" at least. I am sorry if my inexact terminology offended you, and as I posted diffs, I don't think there was any "misrepresentation". Still, you are asking me to prove a negative, and your oppose is not consistent with WP:WIAFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - This well written article has become wonderfully rounded out since I read it last. The complex and subtle details of the sleazy political operations of this under-the-radar political operative draws the reader into the article. I am surprised so much information was able to be unearthed. The article carefully referenced from a number of well-rounded sources. Compelling to read. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• One nit pick: references should always come after punctuation, including dashes, and not before. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:FN#Ref_tags_and_punctuation: "When a reference tag coincides with punctuation, the reference tag is normally placed immediately after the punctuation, except for dashes, as recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style and other style guides." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for the clarification.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• I know, but jeez, Mattisse, having it after a dash looks ridiculous! I'll just rephrase to eliminate the dash.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I got smacked down for that very thing on these pages once! It's just for your own good! —Mattisse (Talk) 20:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• I guess so. Well, I changed it. It is like the old adage about "who" and "whom", "When whom is proper, rephrase so it isn't."--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support I had seen the article previously in doing some updates to other Nixon-related articles and the work that has been done to expand and source the article is impressive. This is an excellent model for expansion of other such articles. Alansohn (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Not happy with the writing yet. Taking time off this damned poll to look at interesting stuff here; I'd like to find this in better state before it's promoted.
• "a close associate and friend of Richard Nixon during much of President Nixon's political career." Tension between "Richard Nixon" and "President Richard Nixon". I'd shift the "Pr" to the first item, and make the second just his surname ...? Oh, but then we find that he was a friend before the presidency. Need to fix this. "Richard Nixon, who became the ?34th Pres. of the US ...".
• "Chotiner was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; his father moved the family to California and then abandoned it. He attended UCLA, and then ...". His father abandoned California or his family? His father attended UCLA? Please go through and check for such ambiguities.
• "he became a part of several political campaigns"—bit awkward ... "played an active role in"?
• Why is "communism" with a capital C, and twice?
• Is "operative" pejorative? I'd have thought it had a negative tinge. Is that OK?
• You could probably remove "which" in the last sentence of the second para.
• I think we shouldn't have to hit the link to "influence-peddling" to learn why Congress would be investigating it. Is it, was it, a crime?

Can you get someone new to run through the whole text? Tony (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made the changes you have suggested, making it clear exactly why Congress was investigating Chotiner, and have asked Mattisse to give the article a once-over. I left one capitalized communism in, by the way, as it is a direct quote. If she can't do it, I'll see if I can find someone else. Thank you as always for your honest feedback. I don't ask that people love my articles, all I ask is that they tell me what they think, because as you have noted, it is hard to be objective about your own prose. I'm going to have to leave a note on your talk page when this is done, hope you don't mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse went through the article pretty thoroughly and did her usual fine job, and then I took a pass through it myself and cleared up a few stylistic things. I think that takes care of that, and I'll leave a note on Tony's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: To be a nattering nabob of negativity, it's unfortunate that Fasach Nua's valid point about File:Chotiner.jpg is being dismissed. There is indeed a reasonable expectation that a federal employee in Chotiner's capacity would have been photographed by a federal employee - if not in his role as advisor/manager, then perhaps as an attorney. LIFE apparently found opportunity and reason to photograph him. NFCC#1 does not provide consideration of effort. "Ordinary effort" is not a threshold and, if an effort threshold is even implied, it would likely be "reasonable effort". Indeed, we can't expect nominators to prove a negative, but we can expect more than an mere internet search. For example, only a small fraction of the LoC's archives have been digitalized; a web search is not sufficient. Was the LoC consulted? Эlcobbola _talk 16:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Comment Well, it is and it isn't, actually. I don't think it is necessary per WP:WIAFA, for sure. That being said, I'd like to have a free use photo in there, it is more useful, you don't have to worry about it getting argued about, and if this article is promoted, I'd like to see it TFA for the 100th anniversary of his birth in October. So I've done some research into where to look. The place to go really isn't the LoC, but the National Archives Nixon room in College Park, and I'm going to try to get there soon, I've been travelling a lot so it hasn't been possible. I've spoken with Jason Shultz at NARA and while they won't do research for you, they have many pictures that are not accessible by Web. But if I find some, they will have to be reproduced, and that will take a bit of time. That basically is why I haven't discussed this before, it is still a bit indefinite and I can't make guarantees on timeframe.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Indeed, as WIAFA and NFCC are currently written, it isn't necessary (thus the reason I've only commented, not opposed). There aren't defined expectations for the level of thoroughness/diligence to be exercised in investigating the existence of free alternatives. That said, given that there is a not unreasonable expectation that a free image exists it is, again, unfortunate that only a rudimentary search was done before submitting to FAC (there's no deadline). Whether Fasach Nua's oppose can be considered actionable is, thankfully, a decision out of my hands. Thanks, though, for the nice article and the opportunity to use one of my favourite quotes. Agnew was quite the character. Эlcobbola _talk 20:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, Agnew is on my list of possible article improvement projects. However, odds are I'll never get there, since it is well down the list and new projects keep suggesting themselves. I should note that I live only 30 miles from College Park, so it is at least possible for me to go there, and I don't mind spending money on reproductions. Were I a college kid in Mississippi or Edmonton, it probably wouldn't be possible, since I could not have afforded to go or hire someone to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  One thing I forgot: NFCC#10A requires attribution of a copyright holder. If a non-free image is to stay, would using one of the aforementioned LIFE images be acceptable? Frankly, I think they're aesthetically superior and use would allow us to properly attribute a copyright holder. Эlcobbola _talk 21:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Good point. Let me look at the LIFE images, but first see what NARA can do for me if I can get over there tomorrow. If I can't, it may be early May before I can again. Busy, busy.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Incidently, LIFE photographed him because Chotiner (who was not a federal employee then) was subpoenaed before a Senate committee in 1956, and it was a major story. It's all in the article. Doesn't mean a federal employee would. However, there is a good chance that the Nixon library may have some, we'll see. If they don't, I think I will have made a good faith effort.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I just spent 2 hours searching through databases of old journals, newspapers, books, and legal documents for images of Chotiner (including the NYTimes database going back to 1851). I found absolutely nothing in terms of free use images, one image attributed to the associated press (emailed to Wehwalt), and another image of Chotiner sitting with Nixon that had no attribution at all. --auburnpilot talk 05:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Above and beyond, AP! Anyhow, if I get out of court at a reasonable hour, I'm going over to College Park. Thing is, I understand parking is limited, they make you watch a power point presentation before beginning research, all that good stuff. We'll see.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:56, 7 April 2009 [30].

---

Acid2

Nominator(s): —Remember the dot ^(talk)

I have done my best to address the concerns brought up in the previous FACs, and feel that this article now meets the standards of stability, comprehensiveness, and understandability required of featured articles. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• TEcH.Review

• Dabs and External links are found up to speed, checked with the respective link checker tools.
• Ref formatting is also found up to speed using WP:REFTOOLS.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Raul654 (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wondering why isn't Google Chrome listed in the intro? Nergaal (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It's because Chrome is derived from Safari, which is mentioned in the lead. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support. mabdul 0=* 07:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support. nneonneo ^talk 02:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Image concerns as follow:

• Can a Commons user with OTRS access verify if ticket #2321205 is meant for all screenshots of the Acid2 test, or just for specific screen captures?

• I have asked Stifle to check. Jappalang (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• File:Usage share of web browsers that pass Acid2.png: please indicate the source(s) used for this graph on the image page itself.
  • Can you be more specific about what you want to see? The image description page already says "Author: Remember the dot, data from Net Applications". —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah, sorry, I read that as "Author: Remember the dot, from Net Applications" (missed the "data"). On that point, is Net Applications a reliable source for this data (pardon me for asking, I am a bit ignorant on this web statistics industry)? Jappalang (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
      • All statistics should be taken with a grain of salt. While no statistics can be perfectly accurate, these ones are reasonably representative and clearly support the statement "Use of Acid2-conformant web browsers has consistently risen since October 2005." We have some less detailed statistics ([31] [32]) from XiTi, a European company, which also show that use of Acid2-conformant browsers is increasing. I made a spreadsheet of the XiTi data which I'm posting on the talk page for you if you're interested. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
        • This would be more in line with WP:RS. Although images are not necessitated to be "reliable", we are talking about a Featured Article here, the best that Wikipedia has to offer. The graphs in such articles, likely, would have to be based on data from reliable sources as well, i.e. sources that the industry rely on, e.g. frequent quoting by the media, use as references in scholarly material, etc (per Ealdgyth's oft-quoted Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches). Hence, would it be better to create the chart from the XiTi data (if it is a reliable source), or is Net Application an equally reliable source? Jappalang (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
          • The data has got to come from Net Applications because XiTi does not give us enough information about specific browser versions, and we need that information to be able to make an accurate graph. The XiTi data gives us a very rough idea of increase in use of Acid2-conformant browsers, but cannot tell us, for example, how much of the Internet Explorer use in a given month comes from the Acid2-failing IE7 versus the Acid2-passing IE8. We have to assume that the contribution from IE8 is negligible in all months because IE8 was only recently released. So the value of the XiTi data is simply in verifying the general trend that Net Applications shows; we cannot make the graph from the XiTi data itself. Feel free to browse through Usage share of web browsers also; nearly every statistics source listed there shows the same general trend.
          • In short, the Net Applications data is the most detailed data available, and matches the trend reported in other sources. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
            • I do not think that the WP:RS guidelines are to look for a customer with the right size to fit a shoe (rather than selling the right sized shoe to a customer). Reliable, in this project, is not the same as "truth", rather it means that one can reasonably trust the source for its provided data. In particular, it seems Net Applications is relied on simply because it is widely quoted in the articles here, rather than any industry backing (ref:Talk:Usage share of web browsers#NetApplications.com data I also note that Net Applications is a questioned source in the previous FAC for this article, so per the actions there, I am leaving this image up for others to decide. Jappalang (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
              • Yes we can reasonably trust Net Applications' data. How do we know? For one thing, other sources, like the European company XiTi, verify the data. For another, Net Applications' data has been quoted in PC World, Computerworld, ZDNet, and several others. There is no doubt that the statement "Use of Acid2-conformant web browsers has consistently risen since October 2005" is verifiably correct. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Reliable sources: there were numerous outstanding queries on sourcing at the previous FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It looks like there were a few queries that have gone unanswered:
    • http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/alpha.html has been replaced by http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngstatus.html#browsers, which is written by one of the authors of libpng, the official Portable Network Graphics library.
    • http://www.snailshell.de/blog/ is written by Thomas Much, one of the two developers of iCab, and is used to assert information about iCab.
    • http://marketshare.hitslink.com/default.aspx has been discussed above.
  • Please let me know if you'd like clarification about any of the other sources. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Our permission relates to "the Acid2 image". Stifle (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:56, 7 April 2009 [33].

---

Cyathus

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FAC criteria, and I'd really like to adorn it with the illustrious symbol of quality, the bronze star. The article passed GAC without much fanfare, and has been subsequently substantially improved with the help of a number of great suggestions at peer review. This is the first of what I hope will be many FAC submissions from me. With the help of these stacks of mycology books and journal articles piled around me, and a coffee machine, I am ready and willing to supplement the existing information, or massage the text to assuage the idiosyncrasies of any reviewer who wishes to read and comment. Thanks in advance. Sasata (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC) (P.S. I'm in the WikiCup)

• All right then... (rolls up sleeves) let's see what we can find....Casliber (talk ·contribs) 04:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Some prose issues in lede to start of with...

• • I'd bold 'bird's nest fungi' in lede as it is a (vernacular) synonym. As is "splash cups"

Bolded. Sasata (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• • The 45 widely distributed species of Cyathus are also.. - bolded bit (I think) is redundant.

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• • wikt link for 'plicate' and 'striate'

Done, although plication was as close as I could get for plicate. Perhaps I'll add a direct definition for plicate in wiktionary later. Sasata (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Generally considered inedible, Cyathus species are saprobic, feeding on decomposing organic matter, and as such are usually found growing on decaying wood or woody debris, on cow and horse dung, or directly on humus-rich soil. - has 4 commas - I'd split after 'saprobic' and slot in a semicolon I think.

Sentence jigged. Sasata (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Image review: All images licensed under cc-by-sa-3.0 or are in public domain, so everything seems good on that front. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 05:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• TEcH Review

• Dabs need to be fixed (checked with the links checker tool)

• ..are up to speed.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• External links are up to speed (checked with the links checker tool)
• Ref formatting (checked with the WP:REFTOOLS script) is not up to speed

• The following refs (code pasted below) are duplicated and appear in the ref section as such, use a ref name instead

• There is one ref that is blank and has no content, that needs to be fixed
• Brodie p. 150.
• {{cite journal |author=Allbutt AD, Ayer WA, Brodie HJ, Johri BN, Taube H. |title=Cyathin, a new antibiotic complex produced by ''Cyathus helenae'' |journal=Canadian Journal of Microbiology |volume=17 |issue=11 |pages=1401–7 |year=1971 |month=|pmid=5156938 |doi= |url=}}

• The following ref names are given to more than one ref, it should only name 1 ref

• Brodie150
• Tulasne1844
• White1902
• Lloyd1906
• pmid5156938
• pmid18083129--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Fix dabs and dup references (I hope). I think the problem for some of them was that I wasn't using the forward-slash-terminated named tags, but instead using </ref> to terminate them. Sasata (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• There are WP:ACCESS, WP:MOS#Images and WP:MOS#Captions punctuation issues with images throughout (images go in sections, not above them, and check punctuation on setnence fragments). There is susbstantial unnecessary chunking up of the article size and text in edit mode with empty parameters on the cite templates; these should be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have unchunked and shaved as requested. Hope it's ok now. Sasata (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• References in non-English languages (even the offine ones) need to note the language they are in.

• Done. Sasata (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 10 needs a page number. Also right now it's "Brodie Birds Nest Fungi" which is a different format than the rest of the references to this book.

• I had done it this way for a reason; the article text makes reference to the fact that a monograph was written about the genus, and I wanted to give reference to the book, but a specific page number is not required. Should I just change the reference to "Brodie."? I didn't think this was the proper solution, because I use several of his other publications as sources. Advice on how to best handle this specific case would be appreciated. (Maybe "Brodie, 1975." ?) Sasata (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That works for that then. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I passed this article for GA. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Support After all my haranguing, the editor has masterfully improved the article in response to my queries.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC) At my FAC you asked for comments on this one. Here they are: Oppose Weak Oppose Neutral I found the article to be deficient in explaining very basic information from the perspective of the unschooled reader of this topic. After reading the WP:LEAD, I found myself wondering the following:

• The LEAD is now robust enough that I can convince myself that the article might contain everything I want to learn about this subject. I am a slow reader so it may take me a few days to figure out if everything I hope to see is included.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the natural habitat for this genus? I.E., where does it naturally occur? Has it been transplanted elsewhere? E.G., does it occur here in North America? Shouldn't there be a map describing where it is commonly found? The places I expected to find the information, Cyathus#Habitat_and_distribution and Cyathus#Spore_dispersal, did not explain this.

• I've expanded the sentence in the lead that dealt with distribution, and added a fair bit to the habitat and distribution section to more thoroughly cover this aspect. I didn't bother putting in a distribution map, because collectively the genus' distribution is worldwide. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the lifecycle for this genus? Does it live for 5 days, 5 months, 5 years? Is it an annual or perennial? Cyathus#Life_cycle told me nothing?

• Have added info about the length of the life cycle. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• I apologize, but this is not my field. You have told me how long it takes to become a fruiting body. Should I understand this to mean they fruit once and die or is it like producing acorns or Pears every year?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hope I've clarified this in the life cycle section now. Sasata (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• You are going to have to be patient with me. I am not understanding what a generation is for these things. Can they produce 10 new generations of fruiting bodies a year or one every ten years. Also, it seems like meiosis is single parent as if two different sperm (analogy) fuse or something. Did I understand this correctly or did I miss a pollination explanation?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please see the linked phrase mating compatibility groups for details on the sex life of fungi; I really don't want the Life cycle section to get more bloated than it already is. My reasoning for not going into this further is explained below. Sasata (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Also you were vague about seasons affecting reproduction. What seasons favor reproduction?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• I was deliberately vague, but I've added the following sentence in the Habitat and Distribution section: "The appearance of fruiting bodies is largely dependent upon features of the immediate growing environment; specifically, optimum conditions of temperature, moisture, and nutrient availability are more important factors for fruiting rather than the broad geographical area in which the fungi are located, or the season."

• Have you clarified the lifespan somewhere? If I chop the head off this thing will it turn into two, regrow or die?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• I added the sentence "The dikaryotic mycelia from which the fruiting bodies are produced is long lasting, and will continue to produce successive generations of fruiting bodies as long as the environmental conditions are favorable." This is about as specific as I can get, I can't find any source that states exactly how long the mycelia of Cyathus can live, although it's relatively common knowledge (among mycologists, of course) that in comparable species (i.e. other Basidiomycetes), this may be several years or longer, until the wood fully decomposes. Sasata (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• When I ask if you have clarified the lifespan I think what I meant to ask is what is a common life expectancy? Isn't life expectancy a basic element of a FA for these types of things? Then I also want an explanation of this things durability. If I knock it off the wood it is on will it re-root and grow in place or will it die. Can you kill it by chopping off the head or not? I don't think you responded to that unless I missed it in all the big words.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• It's difficult to balance your desire to know everything about this fungus' lifestyle with violating the summary style criterion. Some of the questions you seek answers to are best answered in articles dealing more with basic fungal biology. For example, I could put in a section explaining how the fungus degrades dead plant material, eventually breaking this plant material into humus and other nutrients that can be used by other organisms, thus fitting in with the global carbon cycle. But the problem is that this process is not unique to Cyathus, but rather all saprobic fungi; that term is linked so the interested reader may read about this process in a more appropriate article. As for the lifespan question, I can't give a simple answer. I previously put in the statement: "The dikaryotic myelia from which the fruiting bodies are produced is long lasting, and will continue to produce successive generations of fruiting bodies as long as the environmental conditions are favorable." I think this covers your question adequately enough: if the mycelia is colonizing a big log, it'll probably have a lifespan measured in years, and will produce fruiting bodies throughout the year as long as the temp and moisture is right. If the mycelia has colonized a small woodchip, it may only produce one flush of fruiting bodies before it runs out of nutrients. Sasata (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• For the headchopping thing think about a reader wondering if I run this thing over with my lawnmower, would I kill it or cause it to proliferate?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• They have no heads :) Most are less than a cm tall, so you'd miss them with your lawnmower. If you picked all the fruiting bodies off a piece of dead wood, the mycelia in the wood wouldn't care, it would produce more fruiting bodies when the time was right. If you took a fruiting body and chopped it in half, it would dry out and die. If you took that chopped piece, put it flush against another piece of moist, dead wood, under the right environmental conditions (eg. temp and moisture), it might start colonizing the new dead wood, and begin its life cycle anew. However, this applies for any mushroom, hence my reluctance to go into this level of detail here. Readers who want to know this stuff can click on links like hyphae, mycelia, vegetative reproduction to get answers to these questions. Sasata (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• "If you picked all the fruiting bodies off a piece of dead wood, the mycelia in the wood wouldn't care, it would produce more fruiting bodies when the time was right." seem to be a fact worth knowing to me. It seems there might be lingo that you could use to put this before the reader.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought about it for a while, but decided not to put anything more in the article about this. The life cycle section has already ballooned (mushroomed?) into one of the largest sections of the article, and much of it deals with basic biological information that is not specific to the genus Cyathus. Yes, I agree it's a fact worth knowing, but I don't think it needs to be explicitly stated in this article, as it applies to every mushroom species. Sasata (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it endangered? I saw no comments on its proliferation? Even if such information is rendered at the species level, you should tell me if any species are endangered.

• Only one species seems to be mentioned on any Red Lists, so that info is now in the Habitat and Distribution section. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Don't infoboxes commonly summarize this info or is that only at the species level?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, there are no other genus FA's (expect for dinosaur genera), so I don't have much to compare to. The only comparable article I could find was Galerina (a GA), so I copied that taxobox format. I will also add the info to the appropriate species article. Sasata (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Galerina is a three-year old GA. Standards have risen. I am going to WP:GAR it later tonight for two reasons. First, its WP:LEAD was more deficient than yours was when I gave my original opinion. Second, the most common reason I GAR articles is a belated complaint against your article as well. I do not support any articles for GA that do not have all or almost all paragraphs with at least one citation. Each paragraph is suppose to have a relatively distinct thought and should have at least one citation. Please make sure your article is structured so that each of your paragraphs has at least one citation. I don't think this should be too difficult because you only have a couple main body paragraphs without any citations. I guess I am saying don't use it as a model.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Have added citations to general mycology texts for the new info added to the life cycle section. Sasata (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• I have responded to your criticisms of the Galerina article. Some points are well-taken, however, I find the majority of them to be mycologically naive and simply not applicable to an article on non-cultivated fungi. I think this is also true of some of the critiques you raise concerning the Cyathus article. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• I will look at Talk:Galerina/GA1 in the next few days. I apologize. Yes, I am not a mycologist. I am just a guy who took Biology (advance, honors or A.P. - I don't remember but I was good in the sciences over 25 years ago). When I decided not to be Pre-med, I think I stopped studying mid-course and have forgotten everything. Yes, I am "naive" on the subject. But the article is improving here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Since we have no model, let's just consider the average reader. One of the first things I want to know about a biological classification is whether it is rare and whether it is thriving. Something such as the following should be in the lead such as Genus X has # species. Of theses species X# are rare, Y# are endagnered and the rest are not known to be less than "safe" as of sources current on MMM YYYY.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've mentioned the one locally endangered species in the lead, readers can get more info in the article text or (eventually, once I put it in there) the species article. Sasata (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• A genus as a whole cannot really be "endangered" as such, and so it does not belong in the taxobox, which is as close to an infobox as you are going to get. I agree that information about the number of species and the rarity of various species may have a place in the article, but I would argue that it is probably not worthy of the lead, and certainly not worthy of a taxobox. J Milburn (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What is its place in the food chain. I.E., are there any species or genuses that thrive on this genus? Does it typically feed off of a genus or species that it helps kill or helps live?

• I'm not sure I can add much more to what I have already without bordering on OR. Essentially, it's known that various species feed on dead wood or dung, but I haven't found any studies that investigate this more fully. As for organisms that thrive on this genus, there's one report from 1938 describing how a bird's nest fungus was parasitized by another fungus, but that association seems to have been non-specific, and wasn't recorded (to my knowledge) again in the literature. Brodie in his monograph writes of evidence that snails might consume the fungus, but its only circumstantial (i.e. he didn't see it directly, there were chewed up fungi and snails nearby). I can put this info in if you really think it's vital. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• O.K. so it commonly thrives on decomposing, dead or decaying matter. Does it secrete decomposition aids? Does it somehow aid the process. Is there a byproduct of the decomposition process that they gain nourishment from. I guess you can not technically call it a parasite because it does not thrive on living matter, but it seems to thrive on types of matter. I do not understand why. Is it unable to compete with living matter for nourishment and relegated to decomposing matter? Are you talking about living fibrous shells or dead. Be clear in the text because these nuts and such seem possibly to be one of the few living hosts if I am reading this right.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 07:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• I was initially reluctant to go into this, as some of the questions you're asking about are applicable to thousands of fungal species, and I thought it was more appropriate for a different article. But I now realize this stuff should be mentioned here to make this article more complete. So I've expanded the life cycle section, and I think I've covered (if only briefly) the aspects you asked about, like secretion of enzymes that help it digest wood components, and mention of persistent dikarytotic mycelia from which fruiting bodies are formed.

• I am still somewhat reluctant to strike this point. Here is my problem. O.K. we know it like to digest certain sugars that attract its colonies. That sort of gives us one direction of the food chain. However, on the other end you only tell us about whether humans eat it. It lives in bird nests I think you said. Do birds eat it. It is found on dead matter. Do foragers of living matter eat it as a primary nutrient or scavengers of dead matter eat it as a complement or substitute to their nurishment?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• I thought I had answered this before... Brodie noted that snails may eat the fungus, but evidence was circumstantial. The fungus does not live in bird's nests, it has the common name bird's nest fungus because of its appearance (stated in the lead). Birds do not eat it (well, they might, but no-one has noticed or written that in print). Its place in the food chain is that it's saprobic; I did add this (linked) word again in the life cycle section. Sasata (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I can not support this with my basic understanding of the topic in anything resembling its current state.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What does it mean when you say "especially older specimens that may have external features worn off". You never describe stuff wearing off. Does the ectoperidium go bald with age. What wears off?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Have clarified by stating: "... especially older, weathered specimens of Cyathus that may have the hairy ectoperidium worn off." Sasata (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you clarified whether the "fibrous material like coconut, jute" is from elements no longer organically connected to the tree by having fallen or do they grow on cocunuts while on the tree?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The latter part of that sentence now reads "... like coconut, jute, or hemp fiber woven into matting, sacks or cloth." Please let me know if I can make it clearer than that. Sasata (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there no illustrations of Mycelia? I still do not understand what they are. Are they the green stuff beneath the fruiting body of the main image or are those hyphae?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Those questions are application to all mushroom species, and you can see images of them in their respective articles (I just added a pic of mycelium to its article). Basically, the hyphae is a single filament, the mycelium is a larger mass of interwoven hyphae. (I'm not exactly sure what the green stuff is in the taxobox picture, but I'd guess some kind of bryophyte (moss)). Sasata (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

After introducing the terms "infection, spread, and survival" use them later where relevant just like germinate. I don't see these later phases because I don't know what to look for.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the word "infection" because although technically correct (using the definition "An uncontrolled growth of harmful microorganisms in a host."), its also potentially ambiguous. I've now used the remaining introductory terms in the paragraph. Sasata (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Will an hour of light a day suffice or do they need 8 hours. Saying that they need light does nto tell me much. If you have any details it would be helpful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Added more detail. Sasata (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I must be missing it. Where?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"Continuous light is not required for fruiting body development; after the mycelium has reached a certain stage of maturity, only a brief exposure to light is necessary, and fruiting bodies will form if even subsequently kept in the dark." Sasata (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why the spores do not get digested as they pass through the digestive tract.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Have added a couple sentences about the fate of peridioles and spores. Sasata (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The relevance of the Bioactive compounds section is not clear to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

These are unique biochemicals produced only by this genus, some with antibacterial, antioxidant, or potential medicinal properties; I didn't think this article could be considered complete without at least mentioning this info. Sasata (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand these splash cups. Do they always open to the point of convexity as pictured in one illustration or are some of them fully open although concave?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Mature fruiting bodies are fully open, and depicted as "A" in the first diagram, beside the immature, closed fruiting body. Sasata (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What is going on with File:Cyathus poeppigii.jpg. Why is it convex?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe it just appears convex because the photo was taken from straight above and from that perspective it lacks some visual cues to show that it's actually concave. I can remove it if you like (or replace it with another picture of something more obviously concave). Sasata (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your helpful suggestions. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to change your oppose. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Should this have a {{mycomorphbox}} somewhere.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The mycomorphboxes are better suited for species-level articles, and for mushrooms with a more "typical" shape. I could put one in, it would look like this (I don't think it's useful here): I put it in the article, per the WikiProject Fungi's guidelines. (But I'm not a fan). Sasata (talk) 08:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Do these things survive prolonged sub-freezing temperatures?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The fruiting bodies probably wouldn't make it, but the mycelia would just lay dormant until conditions were favorable for fruiting again (this is the case for all mushrooms). Sasata (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you source that and add it to the article.

How about elevation. Do these survive above the tree line.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't generalize for the whole genus, but I did add in some specific examples to address the latest two points: "Examples of the ability of Cyathus to thrive in somewhat inhospitable environments are shown by C. striatus and C. stercoreus, which can survive the drought and cold of winter in temperate North America,[19] and the species C. helenae, which has been found growing on dead alpine plants at an altitude of 7,000 feet (2,100 m).[20]"

If these can survive at a high altitude, I need another question answered. Are these not like green plants that need CO2 to produce Oxygen. Can you describe air composition needs and uses.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

They obviously don't have any Chlorophyll. I am just trying to get an understanding of their activity.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is another question dealing with mushroom biology, and I don't think needs to be discussed here. I don't think there have been any studies dealing with "air composition" in relation to Cyathus. It's a very valid question when dealing with lichens, as many are pollution sensitive and will only thrive in clean air, but it doesn't apply to this genus. Sasata (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments from J Milburn

I reviewed the article at peer review a couple of weeks ago, and all issues raised there have been dealt with. These are some issues I have spotted on this reading.

• If Cyathus striatus is the type species, shouldn't it be a picture of that in the taxobox? Alternatively, a picture/collage of several species may be more informative.

• I thought the C. stercoreus pic looked nicer, but yeah, the type should probably be in there. Changed. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• "decomposing organic matter (they are saprobic)." Why the italics? Also, isn't this a little redundant? Would you say "Lions feed on meat (they are carnivores)"?

• Fixed (for me). Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• "the generic name" Perhaps link to Name of a biological genus?

• Done. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• (Ignore if I asked you last time...) "paper by J. Schmitz," First name, if known?

• I tried, but could not find the full first name. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• "and Harold J. Brodie in 1975.[10]" Perhaps it would be better to reference someone other than Brodie regarding the publication/significance of his book?

• Actually, the reference is merely to the book's existence as a monograph about the genus, so it should be ok. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• "entwined with bits of the underlying" 'bits' seems a little informal.

• Changed to "small fragments". Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• "G.W. Martin in 1924,[24] and later elaborated by Buller, who used Cyathus striatus as the model species to experimentally investigate the phenomenon.[25] Buller's major conclusions about spore dispersal were later summarized by his graduate student Brodie" Full names? We have Buller's on his article. No need to link Brodie, as he's mentioned above.

• Done. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• "C. helenae, C. africanus and C. earlei.[29][30][31][32]" As a footnote lover, I'm surprised I'm saying this, but are they all needed? As each one of them is only used to reference that one statement, perhaps they could be made into one footnote, listing all three with bullet points? That would probably be better than removing any of them.

• I've reduced the citation clumping by citing more specifically immediately after the respective species. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps an article could be written at Cyathin? Is there enough in the sources?

• Yes, there is enough info to warrant a separate article. Will start it sometime soon. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure about the section title "agricultural". How about "agriculture"? The other two subsections are nouns, seems strange that this one is an adjective.

• Agree. Fixed to noun. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• "cybrodol (derived from humulene),[37] nidulol, and bullerone." Have we articles on any of those chemicals? What are they? Are they exclusively linked to this genus?

• No articles on these compounds; yes they are specific to this genus. I could start these articles too, but I don't think they'd be much more than stubs. Sasata (talk)

• Probably not worth it- perhaps you could expand on what they are here, and mention that they are genus specific? Do they have any uses? J Milburn (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've clarified in the intro sentence for that section that these compounds are Cyathus specific. I couldn't find any application for these metabolites, other than a 1981 paper describing their total synthesis, but they don't seem to be mentioned again in the literature. Sasata (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• "the brothers Tulasne" How about "the Tulasne brothers"? The former sounds a little archaic.

• Ok, changed. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Noting TonyTheTiger's comments above, I feel the food chain issue could be expanded on. The fact it's only mentioned briefly in the lead isn't great- it may even deserve its own section within the article.

• See reply to Tony above. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hope that helps. Feel free to chop up/strike out my comments as appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support, now that two waves of my comments and TonyTheTiger's concerns have all been dealt with. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support (moral or otherwise as WP:fungi member) fulfils criteria. prose good, comprehensive, nothing obvious left to improve - over the line. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Per the WP:FAC instructions, please remove the collapsible boxes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Gone. Sasata (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Image review (part 2) File:Cyathus striatus Buller.jpg - We need a death date for W. G. Smith to establish life of the author plus 70 years. Awadewit (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Worthington G. Smith (1837-1917), info from Ainsworth CG. (1976). A History of Mycology. Cambridge University Press. p. 347. I'll add his death year to the file info. Sasata (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:56, 7 April 2009 [34].

---

Phagocyte

Nominator(s): Eulemur2008 (talk · contribs) and Graham Colm ^Talk 14:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured article because, have you ever wondered why pus is green, or what is the fate of all those unfriendly bacteria that we encounter every second of every day, or even how we rid our bodies of used-up cells? We have been working on this article for six months. Last autumn, I, Eulemur, adopted a poor, neglected stub as part of my contribution to Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008—an educational assignment, and I Graham offered Eulemur my help as a mentor. Working together on Eulemur's substantial research—which in his own right brought the article to GA—we have contributed an article that we consider is worthy of an FA star. We have been helped by in-depth peer reviews from Colin, Brian Boulton, Natural Cut and other members of the AP project, (but we do not presume their support). This collaboration has been overseen—distantly—by Eulemur's biology teacher Mr Butler. We thank all the other editors who have helped with this, but stress that any remaining errors are probably all our own work. Graham Colm ^Talk 14:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support Graham asked me to review this article five weeks ago. I warned him I was slow. I finally reached the bottom of the references at midnight last night. Before, I couldn't have told you what a phagocyte was, but I've now got respect for these little guys who kill, eat and die to protect me. This is such a tough subject to achieve an FA-level of comprehensiveness combined with accessibility for the general reader. Eulemur and Graham have succeeded IMO. Well done. Colin°^Talk 15:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Colin, your intelligent, critical analysis—from a lay-persons perspective—was indispensable. Due to your patience, help and advice, this once opaque and very technical article can now, we hope, be appreciated by a wider readership. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and support Colin. --Eulemur2008 (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Technical Review -- Disambiguation and External links are up to standards based on the respective link checker tools, and the ref formatting based on the WP:REFTOOLS script is up to standards.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Sasata

• There shouldn't be any stuff in the lead that's not in the main article (etymology is not in article).

• Are there 6 billion (lead) or 5 billion (article) phags/L in blood? Just noticed the latter refers specifically to neutrophils. The lead number should also be mentioned in the article text. Sasata (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• MOS fixes in references: Title of journals should be given in full; all page ranges should use endashes; species names in the journal article titles must be in italics.

• I had a quick read and overall was impressed by the accessibility; haven taken graduate level courses in immunology I realize how arcane some of this stuff can be. I promise to give it a thorough read-through later with more extensive comments. Sasata (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sasata, thank you for these comments. I have replaced the hyphens with endashes where needed. There was a long discussion about abbreviated journal titles here, but a consensus was not reached and the MoS, as far as I have searched, has nothing to say on this. I have used diberri's tool for many of the citations, as many medicine and biology FAs have done, which returns an accepted format for them. I will fix the "neutrophils" and "etymology" problem today. Thanks again. Graham Colm ^Talk 10:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing me to that discussion, I wasn't aware. I was going by what I had read in Wikipedia:Scientific_citation_guidelines#Annotations, but I see now there isn't really a clear consensus. Still learning this MOS stuff. Sasata (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As we all are :-) Thanks. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support; good work on a very broad and tough topic. Tezkag72 (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and support. Graham Colm ^Talk 13:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current refs 10, 11, 14 (Janeway, Chapter...) needs a publisher. If this is an online extract of a published book, should give all "book" details also. I see it's a book in the bibliography, suggest making it more explicit that it's got its bibliographical details at the bottom.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth, I'll do as you suggest. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I was responsible for the abbreviated Janeway refs. I shortened the full citations to just the author and chapter name with a URL convenience link and moved the full citation to the bibliography section. Do the article authors have a paper copy? I note that the original citation had the ISBN of the 7th ed, but the online version is the 5th ed. If you have the paper, then we could replace this with a standard "Janeway, p 50–70" style ref. Then append a note that the text is available free online here (if necessary, pointing out that the edition is different). I dislike the new suffix of "This book is listed in Bibiliography section below." and would probably prefer a return to three full citations if the explanation needs to be that long. Would "see Bibliography" be enough? Colin°^Talk 17:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a paper copy of this one (I have for all the others) I think "see bibliography" would be suitable if Ealdgyth is happy with this. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That'd work out fine, "see bibliography" works. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Colin and Graham. Sorry about the ISBN mix-up on the Janeway ref; when I clicked on a link for information on the book it went to the current 7th edition instead of the 5th. Thanks for your suggestions Ealdgyth. --Eulemur2008 (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support Very comprehensive and well written - comments to come later. Ceranthor 23:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• One nitpick - in the history section I suggest re-linking Starfish. Otherwise an awesome article. Ceranllama's chat post 22:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and I have added the link. Graham Colm ^Talk 07:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• You have my very much support - Only one nitpick to give you -
  • Phagocytes, in particular dendritic cells and macrophages, stimulate lymphocytes to produce antibodies by an important process called antigen presentation. - Source?

Otherwise, really good job, guys.Mitchazenia :  Chat  3 years and counting... 10:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and kind words. The purpose of the sentence you have quoted is to guide the reader gently into the next section on antigen presentation which is fully sourced. We can of course duplicate the appropriate reference if you wish. Graham Colm ^Talk 10:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I get nagged to do that, so I just make sure that all end-of-paragraph sentences are sourced. If you could fix it, Thanks.Mitchazenia :  Chat  3 years and counting... 10:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Graham Colm ^Talk 10:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

One image concern as follows:

• File:Metchnikof.jpg: where was this image published before 1923? Getty is managing Hulton Archives' copyright claim on this image,[35] which their client is likely eligible to; the author might not have died more than 70 years ago and the picture might have been published in that time but after 1923. How about File:Dr Metchnikoff in his Laboratory.jpg as a replacement? Alternatively, I have found File:Nature of Man - Elie Metchnikoff.jpg (although he is facing right).

I have verified the rest of the images to be in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jappalang, I have swapped the image as advised. It is a poorer portrait but his being in the laboratory compensates to some extent for this—I love all those tubes and bottles. Thank you for taking the time to find this. You could have simply objected to the previous one and left it at that—but you didn't, and this is much appreciated. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 13:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Aye, it was no problem; the searching was fun at times. Jappalang (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments A very good article I must say. In general, pixel sizes should not be specified for images so I removed them. My screen is very wide and I always seem to have whitespace issues so I tried to fix them. If they cause issues on your screen feel free to revert them. I'm also not a fan of sentence fragments in the photo captions. I know its not a requirement, but adding short bits of info in the captions will help improve the look of your article. A lot of people just look at the pictures and skip the words, so the captions should be as engaging as possible. One example: "Neutrophils move from the blood to the site of infection" could be changed to "Sensing proteolytic enzymes, neutrophils move from the blood, and envelop bacteria through phagocytosis." which is much more informative. Think of them as mini-summaries of the article which give the casual reader a quick and easy way to absorb the information. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi ErgoSum and thank you for your comments on the article. Yes I know these pages appear differently depending on the readers' screens, but I think the {{clear}} templates that you have added will cause more whitespace problems than you tried to solve. So I will remove them—I hope you don't mind. Your comments on fuller image legends are interesting, but of course are not an FA requirement. Actually, the example you kindly offered is not accurate. This is why we prefer the simpler legends—fuller, accurate descriptions would require numerous wikilinks in the legends which we have tried to avoid. I understand why you suggest this because I (Graham) do it myself when scanning popular science magazines, in that I look at the pictures first. Thanks for reading and reviewing this article your contribution to this FAc is very much appreciated. Best wishes. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats fine, the clear templates weren't a big deal, just a personal preference. Regardless of the accuracy of my caption suggestion, I still think it would be a good idea. Wikilinks are not required for captions, and actually terms shouldn't be linked after the first mention anyway. I realize cosmetic issues (such as captions and whitespace) are not FA requirements, but I try to help in whatever way I can. This is not really my area of expertise (I deal mainly with the transportation categories), so I'm sorry I can't give you any meaningful constructive criticism. For this reason I'm also going to refrain from casting a vote. But a good job nonetheless, and very informative! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: is there something wrong with the wikitable code? On my browser (Firefox 2.0), the table title is offset to the left of the array, producing a case of ugly misalignment and whitespace. Jappalang (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks OK on my screen Jappalang, but I haven't purged my cache yet. Was it okay at your end in earlier versions? Have recent edits caused this problem? We don't want a code problem at this crucial stage of the FAC. :-( Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It could just be a browser issue. It seems fine for "Non-professional Phagocytes" in this version, but "Professional Phagocytes" is displaced. The problem becomes worse for "Non-professional Phagocytes" in the current version when the table is brought to the centre, instead of being placed at the right. Jappalang (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

For me, it looks OK in Firefox ( version 3.08, my routine browser) and in Explorer and Safari, which I always treble-check with. So I am at a loss here. Sorry, perhaps some youngster can help me out? Graham Colm ^Talk 23:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine for me too in Firefox and IE. I even checked with Netscape and it looked ok there too. --Yohmom (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I use Internet Explorer and I am unable to find anything wrong with the tables. Thanks for your concerns Jappalang. --Eulemur2008 (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You are all correct. I just tested on Opera and Internet Explorer, and the page looks fine. Looks like a bug with old Firefox (2.0.0.20). Sorry for the needless alarm. Jappalang (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Support interesting and informative; I can't see anything significant that needs fixing jimfbleak (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and support. Graham Colm ^Talk 13:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • It's very centered on humans. It doesn't give an indication of how much of it is true for e.g. mouse, chicken, zebrafish, sea urchin, fly. Narayanese (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The evolution section needs work. A problem is that it doesn't state if the slime mold (which it somewhat confusingly call amoeba) phagocytic cells are phagocytes or not, and whether they are related to white blood cells. Another that it never says when phagocytes appeared, and what they were. Narayanese (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. Yes, I agree that the article focuses on mammalian phagocytes and gives many examples from humans, but I do not think this is a problem. I think most readers will find our phagocytes the most interesting. The article does not completely ignore the phagocytes of other species and says, for example; Phagocytes occur throughout the animal kingdom, from marine sponges to insects and lower and higher vertebrates. — Animals' cells constantly die and are replaced by cell division and the third sentence of the Lead, Phagocytes are important throughout the animal kingdom, and are highly developed in vertebrates.

The section on evolutionary origins has been the subject of much discussion on the article's Talk Page. It was probably the most difficult to write because not that much is known, we do not have the advantage of fossil evidence. Dictyostelium discoideum is definitely a phagocytosing amoeba and, more interestingly, has become over recent years a useful experimental model in the study of phagocytes in that they share many mechanisms, and underlying genes, with macrophages. I have expanded the section this morning in light of your comments, but I can not fully answer your questions on when they first appeared, or what they were; I do not think anyone can yet.

Thanks again, for these useful comments. Graham Colm ^Talk 11:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you sorted out the slime mold ambiguities. I still recommend adding species ranges to the discussions about the cell types, "higher animals" is hopelessly imprecise. A discussion on apaptive immunity by alternatively spliced receptors on phagocytes in invertebrates would also benefit the article. Narayanese (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Charles Hess source seems self-published, should be replacable. Narayanese (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Hess can be replaced with easily with Delves. Would you be happy with jawed vertebrates instead of "higher animals"? With regard to alternatively spliced receptors in invertebrates, could you elaborate? Graham Colm ^Talk 21:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Jawed vertebrates is nicely specific. By alt splicing I was thinking of Dscam... maybe too narrow for the article. But something along the lines of "Recent findings suggest that somatic mechanisms of receptor diversification analogous to those of the acquired system of jawed vertebrates may be a more widespread feature of animal immunity than previously supposed. Examples of these include a gene conversion–like process that diversifies variable leucine-rich repeat (LRR)–containing receptor (VLR) proteins in jawless vertebrates (9, 10), somatic mutation of fibrinogen-related protein (FREP) receptors in a mollusc (11), and extensive alternative splicing of the Down syndrome cell adhesion molecule (DSCAM), a molecule that principally guides neuronal patterning, to generate immune reactive isoforms in insects (12, 13)." (from PMID 17095692) but with a mention that these mechanism aid phagocytosis perhaps? Narayanese (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I am with you, but I need to turn this into Colin-proof and jargon-less prose. Thanks for your advice and review which has helped to improve the article. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

After some searching around, I saw some of it is not phagocytosis-related, so it might after all be better to skip the whole thing... don't know.

Having spent half an hour trying to write a line or two on this I have to agree. Graham.

I was a bit surprised to read that mesenchymal stem cells (says 'mesenchymal cells' which could be broader (not sure about the term), but the links goes to the stem cells) are phagocytes, possibly the link is not right and should be to Mesenchyme. Narayanese (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right, but both are poor stubs IMHO. It's a good job that FACs do not have to take on the responsibility for the linked articles :-) PS. any chance of a "support" and making an old man's and a very hard working school student's day? Graham Colm ^Talk 23:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll probably get around to it soon, just feel like I need to read the article more. Narayanese (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Support- this article is well written and quite comprehensive. The content of the parts I'm familiar with is accurate and lay-person friendly (I know nothing about amoeba). I haven't extensively looked into the all references but what I've seen looks very reasonable, and I have no doubt Graham read each and every paper he referenced,... twice. I've listed my suggestions for improvement on the talk page, but they certainly shouldn't stand in the way here.--DO11.10 (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, support and very helpful suggestions. Graham Colm ^Talk 13:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Support: I knew nothing on phagocytes and now I know much more. Really comprenhensive and easy to read article.--Garrondo (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and support. Graham Colm ^Talk 13:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:56, 7 April 2009 [36].

---

Paulinus of York

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I swear it's the last short bishop for a while? Seriously, he's the last link in the Gregorian mission featured topic. He's not very interesting, no whippings by St Peter or bastard children lurking about. Most you can say is that there is some controversy among historians as to when he actually went to Northumbria. As usual, research by myself, copyediting by Malleus. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

comments Thorough and well written as usual, but a few quibbles, mainly in the lead

• in medieval England. – is this necessary? The date is given, and even if you don’t know where York is, England is mentioned twice more in this paragraph.

struck it. However, I will point out in my defence that you wouldn't believe how many folks don't think of 644 as medieval nor know that York is in England. ... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Paulinus arrived in England by 604 with the second missionary group. Little is known of Paulinus' activities after his arrival in England. – Well, the article actually says quite a bit more about him, perhaps something like Little is known of Paulinus' activities in the following two decades, which also avoids repetition of arrived/arrival and England

works for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• built some churches. Prefer a number of churches as later, but not a big deal

fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• ''built some churches. One of those Paulinus... – presumably not a church, perhaps One of the women...?

fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• He was probably an Italian by birth.[2] They had arrived in Kent by 604, Who they? Intervening sentence has dislocated from subject, need to repeat mission

Switched to "The second group of missionaries arrived... " which also rids me of a stray "had". Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Christian and to continue to worship. – practising Christian might be less clunky

Let's try "... Christian and worship as she chose." Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• In the third sentence of Death, I tweaked slightly while fixing a typo, please check it's OK

Still good. Thanks for finding the typo. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to supporting shortly jimfbleak (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Support Your solutions to the last two queries much better than my suggestions;, as to the first, didn't someone say "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography"? (: Good luck, jimfbleak (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• Disambiguation and external links check out fine with the respective checker tools in the toolbox, as does the ref formatting with the WP:REFTOOLS script.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Minor question Do we know what happened to his relics? They seem to vanish from the narrative in the 1080s; do they still exist somewhere, were they destroyed in the Conquest or the Reformation, or do they just vanish from history? Since for a saint, their bones in some ways are their legacy, it's perhaps more important for him than for most. – iridescent 21:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess they went poof in the Dissolution. Most relics in England did then. Nothing I have says what happened to them, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. If the worst I can find is "we don't know where his bones are", that should be enough. – iridescent 22:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there are any relics from prior to the Dissolution left in England. There are some that might be with Rufus' bones, but I'm not sure they ever figured out whose they might be (they aren't sure those bones are Rufus' either, for that matter.) What didn't get lost in the Dissolution generally got lost under Cromwell. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha! I know a bishop fact that you don't! – iridescent 22:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's unsourced (snickers) You know me.. if it's not sourced, it doesn't exist... (Cuthbert's on my "eventually" list along with Becket.. but only after I finish all the others...)Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Image review: no issue with the statue (its sculptor should be dead centuries ago, and if not, the UK has freedom of panorama). The map should not be a GIF, so I converted it to a PNG and used that. Maps are recommended to be SVGs per Wikipedia:Image use policy, but the PNG should suffice at a minimum level. Anyone interested in making an SVG for the map here, please go ahead. In short, no opposable actions for the two pictures. Jappalang (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Leaning towards support Interesting article, though I found the writing a little dense at times.

• "Edwin promised to convert to Christianity if he won a victory over Wessex, and allowed his new daughter, Eanflæd to be baptised. Unclear, is it "...convert to Christianity and allow his new daughter...if he won a victory over Wessex", or "...if he won a victory over Wessex. He allowed his new daughter..."

It was both (convert and allow the daughter to be baptised) ... I've rephrased to "Edwin promised to convert to Christianity and allow his new daughter Eanflæd to be baptised if he won a victory over Wessex." which hopefully clears that up. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Good. Ceoil (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• "Edwin died in his defeat - What makes this a well written phrase, hmm. Not sure how to reword it better though.

Let's try "Edwin was defeated by the Welsh and died at the Battle of Hatfield Chase, on a date traditionally given as 12 October 633." That better? I agree the previous was not good. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Ceoil (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• There are a few other bits and pieces I can fix myself. Ceoil (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll get to these in a few, I JUST got in from finishing up fencing outside and I stink to high heaven. Shower calls! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a busy man. Responce in 20 minutes or I oppose. Har. Ceoil (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Support Well constructed and referenced, and a pleasure to read. Tiniest gleanings:

• Is "due to" as used here passim a US usage where in the UK a noun clause would be needed and "owing to" or "because of" would be correct?

Yes, it is. (after I parsed the grammar-speak.) Changed to "because of". Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ditto for the possessive - my English teachers would have had me write "Paulinus's"

Mine would have shot me if I didn't do Paulinus'. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• "Paulinus was anxious to convert the Northumbrians" - is anxiety the right idea here or was he keen, determined, or some such?

Changed to "wished" I'm not entirely certain that "anxious" wasn't a leftover from the old 1911 britannica, which was the origin of this article, way back when. I've rewritten it almost completely, but sometimes a word or two will linger. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• "Edwin promised to convert to Christianity if he won a victory over Wessex, and allowed his new daughter..." - this is ambiguous. "...and he allowed..." would make the meaning unambiguous.

fixed per Ceoil above. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• "If Kirby's arguments on the date of Paulinus' consecration is accepted..." - "are accepted" I think.

fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• "His successor at Rochester was Ithamar, the first Englishman consecrated to a Gregorian missionary see. After Paulinus' death he was revered as a saint..." - another ambiguity: perhaps make it clear that the revered person was Paulinus rather than Ithamar.

Fixed. Replaced "he" with "Paulinus". Hate the repetition, but it's necessary. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

But this is all very, very minor. Let me just add how much I, knowing nothing of the subject, enjoyed the article and found it easy to absorb. Tim riley (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll get to these in a few, I JUST got in from finishing up fencing outside and I stink to high heaven. Shower calls! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:56, 7 April 2009 [37].

---

Samuel Johnson's early life

Nominator(s): Ottava Rima (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because Raul listed the Samuel Johnson page as the Featured Article of the Day back in January and Johnson needs a FA article for his 300th birthday coming up 9 September 2009. This page was originally part of the main Johnson page but was split to make room for information on themes, works, criticism, etc, that some FAC reviewers wanted (as it met the size range before FAC). That FAC was supported by over 30 people in the end.

The sections moved were written by myself with the original guidance and copyediting of Malleus Fatuorum‎. I would list him as a co-nom, but he knows that regardless of his actual participation in this directly, that he will get credit for the many months of work that he put into the page as a whole and these sections. Since his and mine original work (and over a dozen copyeditors), I added two new sections ("Parents" and "Early works") along with a few sentences to expand on a few issues that seemed that they could use a little more. I also added 4 more images since then to fill in any gaps. I also had an additional 6 more copyeditors look through the page for any problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Support – issues resolved.--Patton^t/c 13:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Concerns from Patton123

• After attending Pembroke College, Oxford for a year, before Johnson was forced to leave due to lack of funds.—(Lede, second paragraph) I think this would parse better as "Johnson attended Pembroke College, Oxford for a year but was forced to leave due to lack of funds".
• Although Johnson began his career as a minor Grub Street hack writer, he would eventually make lasting contributions to English literature as a poet, essayist, moralist, novelist, literary critic, biographer, editor and lexicographer.—(Lede, third paragraph) Take out the "although" at the start and put in "though" after the first comma.
• At the age of 29 Michael Johnson had planned to marry a local woman named Mary Neild, but she had broken off the engagement.—(Parents, second paragraph) order so it reads "Michael Johnson had planned to marry a local woman at the age of 29..."
• During the previous June, Johnson, while working as a tutor for Thomas Whitby's children, applied for the position of headmaster at Solihull School.—(Edial Hall, first paragraph) move "Johnson" to after "Thomas Whitby's children,"

Technical review:

• The article has two disambiguation links: editor and infectious (Do they really need to be linked at all?).
• Images all good.
• Referencing is awesome, though I think it would be better to use {{reflist|colwidth=30em}} rather than {{reflist|2}} . That adjusts the reference columns based on resolution, with only one column for 800x600 screens, and 3+ for 1440x900+.

That's all. It's a brilliant article, great work! I really liked the quote boxes :-)--Patton^t/c 19:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I try to avoid wikilinking unless it is to proper names. I don't remember when those came in but I removed them. I changed some of the wording. I think the first problem was from a merged sentence. I removed some more wikilinks that seemed excessive. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. Collapsing and supporting.--Patton^t/c 19:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Tech. Review

Dabs and external links (checker tools)

• ..are up to speed

Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS)

• The following ref is duplicated (wikicode pasted below), and appears as such in the ref section. Use a ref name instead

• {{Harvnb|Demaria|1994|pp=5–6}}--₮RUCӨ 21:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. It appears that there was a formatting error. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

...is found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 21:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Fowler&fowler

I'm an sorry to be this blunt this early in an FAC review, but the prose has far too many issues of grammar, usage, clarity and logic to be worthy of an FA. Here are some examples from the first lead paragraph. I want to stress though that every paragraph in the article has similar problems.

• (Sentence 3) "His early years were dominated by his eagerness to learn, the various experiences with his family members, his eventual attempt at college, and finally trying to settle down into a career."
  • (Grammar) The parallel structure in the sentence is very faulty. (Exercise)
  • (Usage) Which of the meanings of "dominate" applies here? (a. To control, govern, or rule by superior authority or power. b. To exert a supreme, guiding influence on or over c. To enjoy a commanding, controlling position in d. To overlook from a height)
  • (Clarity) What does it mean to say, "his early years were dominated by his various experiences with his family members?" How is that much different from "his early years were dominated by his various experiences of his early years?"
  • (Logic) How can "early years" be dominated by an "eventual attempt at college?"
• (Sentence 4) "After attending Pembroke College, Oxford for a year, Johnson was forced to leave due to lack of funds."
  • (Clarity) Lack of whose funds? In any case, lack of funds is not the cause. Do you mean "non-payment of fees?"
• (Sentence 3) "He tried to work as a teacher, but he was unable to find a long lasting position."
  • Was he unable to find such a position or was he unable to make a position last long (since he apparently "tried to work")? In the former case, you want to say "he was unable to find a long-term position;" in the latter, you want to say "he was unable to last long in any teaching job."

The article needs a very careful copy-edit. My own sense is that such a copy-edit cannot be undertaken in the time frame available for an FAC. The article should be withdrawn, worked on, and re-submitted. We owe at least that much to Johnson. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As per this page, the bulk of the article has been copyedited by over two dozen people. As per the comments above, there is no real grammatical issues. If this user continues in his way, I will take him immediately to WP:ANI for a point violation. As such, I will not acknowledge this user's presence within this FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Note - the lead, the first section, and last section (the "new" sections) have been copy edited by over seven people. Notice how he is unable to come up with a true grammatical issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless Fowler has been disruptive in the past, you seem to have taken exception to a difference of stylistic opinion. I came across this while browsing Wikipedia but I wanted to point out you have a grammatical issue in the sentence where you say there is no real grammatical issues. Sorry, couldn't resist. Mobile Writes (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I think that all of the points raised by Fowler&fowler have been addressed. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Post2 by Fowler&fowler—Question for Sandy Georgia or Awadewit

What is a point violation? What have I violated in my statement above that is worthy of AN/I time? I am happy to point out prose issues in pretty much every sentence of the article. I have tried to be polite in my post above. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't point out any prose issues. You used incorrect terms. You even questioned what "dominate" means when a native English speaker understands what a dominate part of a life is, and you even claimed that you would find tons of problems within the best FA right now, which this was a part of and whose prose (the vast majority) was passed by over 2 dozen people before it was placed on its own page to make room for others. Those who passed it included some of our top copyeditors. This all comes after -you- threatened to find "errors". You coming to this FAC almost immediately, combined with the threat, and combined with your false oppose is enough to warrant that you are here only for disruption and should be banned from FAC. WP:POINT if you want to know what a point violation is. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Post3 by Fowler&fowler—Further comments on syntax and diction in remainder of "Parents" section

I am working with this version of the FAC page. I have already commented on Sentences 1 through 4 in this section (on the FAC talk page). Here are most of the remaining sentences in that section.

• (Sentence 5):"William was the first Johnson to move to Lichfield, and died shortly after the move."
  • One refers to "the move" (i.e. the act of relocation) if some details of the relocation have been provided. So, for example, we can say, "On June 19, William Johnson moved from the village of Cranleigh in Strattfordshire to the nearby town of Lichfield; he, however, expired shortly after the move." When no such details are provided, one says, "... and died shortly after moving there."
  • What do we mean by the "first Johnson?" Had no person with last name "Johnson" moved to Lichfield? If the latter is intended, then is there a citation for this? Or do we really mean, William was the first person in his family (or extended family) to move from rural Strattfordshire to Lichfield? In other words (especially in an encyclopedia), we should be saying: "William was the first person in his (extended) family to move to Lichfield and died short after moving there."

• (Sentence 5)"Michael Johnson, after leaving his apprenticeship at 24, followed in his father's footsteps and became a book seller on Sadler Street, Lichfield."
  • Wasn't being an apprentice to a bookseller already a case of following in his father's footsteps?

• (Sentence 7):"At the age of 29, Michael Johnson was engaged to be married to a local woman, Mary Neild, but she cancelled the engagement."
  • "was" is incorrect when you are describing a time period such as the "age of 29." It should be "At the age of 29 Michael Johnson became engaged to be married to a Lichfield woman, Mary Neild, who, however, later canceled the engagement."

• (Sentence 8): "Twenty years later, in 1706, he married Sarah Ford. She came from a middle-class milling and farming family ..."
  • "Middle-class" is not an expression that either was used at that time or is generally applied to that time. Its first occurrence is 1745 and it is generally not applied to the UK before the conclusion of the Napoleonic wars (1815).
  • "... and was twelve years his junior, daughter of Cornelius Ford." has faulty syntax. Simpler to say, "Twenty years later, in 1706, he married Sarah Ford, who was twelve years his junior and daughter of a local miller and farmer, Cornelius Ford."

• (Sentence 9): "Although both families had money, Samuel Johnson often claimed that he grew up in poverty."
  • "Both families" here is vague (since the two people mentioned are the two women he became engaged to);
  • Similarly, "had money" is vague as well (i.e. in an encyclopedia). Better to say, "Although neither of his parents' families was considered poor by the standards of the day, Samuel Johnson often claimed (that) he grew up in poverty."

• (Sentence 10): "It is uncertain what happened between the marriage of his parents and Samuel's birth three years later to provoke a decline in the family's fortunes, but Michael Johnson quickly became overwhelmed with debt from which he was never able to recover."
  • The (grammatical) subject of the sentence changes from Samuel J. in the first half to Michael J. in the second.

No, the grammatical subject of the sentence is the mysterious happening. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This has already been addressed below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "marriage of his parents" Although most people will understand what is meant, it is more correct to say, "wedding of his parents"

No, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, Marriage: The action, or an act of marrying; the ceremony by which two people are made husband and wife Marriage is the best word in this context. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have the March 2009 draft edition of the OED right here. "Marriage" for "wedding" is archaic, Scottish or South Asian usage; not standard English usage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Archaic? Get a better dictionary. Gay marriage is used quite frequently. Marriage is a legal definition. Wedding is not. This is just more evidence that you should be a primary English speaker before criticizing English usage. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "provoke" usually means something more deliberate (i.e. to excite or stir up, to incite, to spur on); it can be used to mean "give rise to" or "prompt," but that use is usually restricted to physical phenomena. (An example is, "A streptococcus was indicated as the trigger that provokes acute rheumatic fever.") Best to say, "..., Samuel's birth to cause a reversal of family fortune ..."

No, again from the OED, Provoke; to give rise to Graham Colm ^Talk 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I am quoting from the OED (the complete one, that is.) The usage "give rise to" is restricted to natural phenomena as I have already observed.

Comment good writing is writing that is understood, better writing has colour, feeling and nuance. I am often accused of being a notorious nit-picker, but really the comments from Fowler&Fowler would be used by H. W. Fowler, were he still alive, as examples of constipated prose that fails to keep up with modern English usage. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid Fowler actually would use your first sentence to illustrate failure of logic, and urge you to change your second independent clause to "better writing also has ...." Clearly better writing needs to be understood as well. That is only the most obvious problem in that sentence. Besides there are nine sentences that I objected to above. You haven't said anything about them. If you honestly think that user:Ottava Rima's broken prose has color, feeling, and nuance, why don't you give me a few minutes and I'll give you some more examples from another section of the article. (It will be in F&f post4.) Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note after reading Fowler's third set of comments, I can't see one concern that isn't already contradicted because the passage is either part of standard speech or common sense. Thus, I will be ignoring the concerns as they lack merit. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just to give an example - "'Middle-class' is not an expression that either was used at that time or is generally applied to that time." This is quite untrue. The above user has probably never read a book by either a Marxist or New Historical bent critic, let alone the thousands of others who aren't in either field. Lane makes it very clear that they were middle-class and even states "middle-class". These, and other such comments, show a lack of understanding how biographies work, how criticism works, and show a disregard for what he is actually reviewing. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

True, I haven't read these critics, but I have read some Marx and some history. Note that we are saying "She came from a middle-class milling and farming family ..." and referring the period before 1706. Here are a few references:

1)Davidoff, Leonore; Hall, Catherine (1991), Family Fortunes: Men and Women of the English Middle Class, 1780-1850, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Pp. 576, ISBN 0226137333 Quote from book: "What was the English Middle Class? The provincial middle class took shape during the turbulent decades of late-eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries."

2)Briggs, Asa (2009), "Britain, 1815–1914", Encyclopaedia Britannica Quote:"The term middle classes began to be used more frequently in social and political debate. So too were working class and classes."

3) OED First use of expression, "Middle class" 1745 J. BRADSHAW Scheme to prevent running Irish Wools to France "The lower and middle Class of their People appear'd at that time, well dress'd in ..."

4)Daniel Defoe, writing after the time we are referring to, distinguished six classes: "1. The great, who live profusely, 2. The rich, who live plentifully, 3. The middle sort, who live well., 4. The working trades, who labour hard, but feel no want, 5. The country people, farmers etc., who fare indifferently, 6. The poor, who fare hard." In which class would Defoe put a bookseller or miller/farmer? Doesn't seem to be the "middle sort."

5)Finally Marx and Engels, themselves, usually reserve the term "middle-class" for the industrial age. However, they sometimes do use "manufacturing middle classes" to describe the mercantile guilds of early capitalism. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• For an example that Fowler doesn't understand grammar - "The (grammatical) subject of the sentence changes from Samuel J. in the first half to Michael J. in the second." Actually, the subject of the sentence is "It" and part of "what happened" or just "happened". This is something -very- obvious and the fact that he believed that Johnson was the subject of the first clause shows that he does not understand what a "subject" actually is. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

True, I made a mistake, but pointing it out doesn't make your sentence any less ambiguous. The two sentences are: "... Samuel Johnson often claimed that he grew up in poverty. It is uncertain what happened between the marriage of his parents and Samuel's birth three years later to provoke a decline in the family's fortunes, but Michael Johnson quickly became overwhelmed with debt from which he was never able to recover." What do we mean by "his?" If we are using "his" to refer to Samuel Johnson already mentioned in the previous sentence, then why are we saying "Samuel's birth" next and not "his birth?" In other words, it is much less ambiguous if we say, "... Samuel Johnson often claimed that he grew up in poverty. It is uncertain what happened between the wedding of his parents and his own birth three years later to cause a reversal of family fortune, but his father quickly became overwhelmed with irreversible debt." Note too that you've responded to only one or two points; there are several others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Middle class simply means "skilled working class" - merchants, skilled laborers, lawyers, etc. It comes from a source. The basic definition is standard English knowledge. The source only verifies its legitimacy of use. The first should have kept you from claiming that it was inappropriate, and the second verifying that. I don't need to respond to -any- of your points because they are all equally absurd. "your sentence any less ambiguous" It really does. "It" is right at the beginning. There is no hidden subject. The first sentence states that there was an event, the second sentence states a response to that event. This is obvious from context. Are you even a native English speaker? I highly suspect that you are not, especially with your interest in Indian articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What does interest in the history of early-modern- and colonial India have anything to do with not being a native English speaker? There are many people in the former group: Christopher Bayly, Eric Stokes, Judith Brown, Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Barbara Metcalf, Muzaffar Alam, ..., are just a few. Some are native English speakers and some are likely not, but all write superb English prose. Besides South Asia itself has many native (or near-native) English speakers, a direct result of over 200 years of British rule. The novels of Salman Rushdie and Arundhati Roy are but two examples of the burgeoning corpus of Indian English literature. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You've used incorrect terminology for grammar, switched things around, made staunch claims about what is proper when there is no strict rule, and your strong interest in Indian articles and terminology suggests that you speak Hindi or some related language. Now, we all know that grammar in England is different than Grammar in the United States. It is even more so between Indian grammar and the rest because of the influence of native languages. It would explain why you are so adamant about things that are incorrect or not important. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler Post4 (Examples of poor prose from Early Works section)

• Sentence 11: "More importantly, the work helped to mould Johnson into a biographical career; it was included in his later Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets series."
  • Wrong word: "mould Johnson" One can't mould (or mold AmE) a person into a career. The work launches the person into a career. —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 02:33, 24 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:

I believe you mean "career" with one "r", and no "or" about it. This is a British page and deals only with British spelling and usage. Mould is proper because it is the act of setting within a physical mould. Launch isn't even close to appropriate, especially if you have read the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

... but a search for "mould * into a career" (* is the generic blank) among authors of books turns up quite empty.  :( This is not the case for the expression "launched * into a career". Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Google books has nothing to do with standard diction nor is it acceptable means to find out what standard diction is. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, you can mould/mold an avocation into a vocation (or career), but you can't mould a person into a career. If you don't like Google Books, which search only among the published authors in the English language, why don't we search in Google Scholar or even the plain old Google web? ... but a search among all scholars for the expression "mould * into a career" too turns up quite emptly.  :( ... but a search among all 1 billion English speaking denizens of the planet only three use the expression "mould * into a career". Of these three, two are talking about moulding a hobby or research into a career (as I have already alluded to above); the third, who does talk about moulding a person into a career, is none other than Mr. Ottava Rima, ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't even have logic. People can be moulded into anything. You have no ability to prove that wrong, so you substitute that by putting up a bunch of empty words. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Ambiguous usage: The expression, "biographical career," means many things in the English language (here is an example from the Cambridge Companion to Goethe, where "biographical career" means personal life), however, it is only rarely used to mean, "career as a biographer." In an encyclopedia, it is best to avoid ambiguity. It is at once clearer and correct to say, "The work helped launch Johnson's career as a biographer; ..." —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 02:33, 24 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:

Then you haven't had enough experience with English language usage. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

... but the Google search for the "biographical career" of some eminent biographers turns up quite empty. :( Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, google search is not an acceptable tool for finding "standard diction" or diction patterns.

• Sentence 12: "It was successful in its partial analysis of Savage's poetry and in portraying insights into Savage's personality, but for all of its literary achievements it did not bring immediate fame or income to Johnson or to Cave; it did though provide Johnson with a welcome small income at an opportune time in his life."
  • What does "portraying insights into Savage's personality" mean? Was he portraying insights? Do you mean "providing insights?" —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 02:33, 24 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:

Nope. The work is a portrayal and if you bother to do research you would see how it portrays insights. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

..., but no author in the English language seems to be using the expression "portraying insights into".  :( Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Google books doesn't contain anything even close to claim "no author" anything. The fact that you relied on it for a third time is only indicative of the general problems with your responses as a whole. Now, I will call you a liar. Why? Because of this. A result of the phrase "portraying insights". Next time, don't try to selectively search and hide from the real results. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, weren't we talking about the expression "portraying insights into?" I can certainly say, "The author has been portraying insights associated with the School of Cacophony as those of a demoralized fringe." This is more or less what the sole (i.e. one, unitary, or single) link in your "this" is saying ...  :( Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the phrase is "portraying insights". If you knew anything about grammar, you know that -into- is part of a different phrase. However, your constant abuse of grammar rules and of the English language suggests that you don't care. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• • You say at first, it did not bring "immediate ... income," but then add "it did provide Johnson with a welcome small income ..." If he received a small income, then he received an income. Period. There is a logical flaw in this sentence. —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 02:33, 24 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:

Key word "immediate". Also, you ignored that it is "fame and income" and that the small income came "at an opportune time in his life". Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

..., but no author in the English language seems to be using the expression "welcome small income".  :( Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet you searched on a phrase that you didn't complain about. Odd how you do that. The fact that you would even suggest that someone else would have to use the phrase is absurd. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me for pointing out that you made one more boo boo in that sentence. Please accept my apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No "boo boo"s exist. Its just you dodging from being wrong by throwing out more empty language to distract from your own flaws. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sentence 13: *"Johnson early works and early life have been neglected topics within Johnson scholarship."
  • "early works and early life" is in the wrong order. I've never seen this expression before and neither has Google. Replace with 'early life and writings." Don't need to repeat "early" either. —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 02:33, 24 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:

No. Works takes priority over life. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

..., but none of the other 1 billion English-speaking denizens of the planet have used the expression "early works and early life".  :( Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No one said "It was the best of times" along with "It was the worst of times" before Dickens, and yet he managed to say it. Come up with a real argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Repetition of Johnson. Why do we need "Johnson scholarship?" Replace entire sentence with, "Johnson's early life and writings have been neglected by scholars." It is understood that we are talking about topics. —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 02:33, 24 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:

No. Scholars and Johnson scholars are two different things. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Typo: Replace first "Johnson" with "Johnson's."

I don't have more time right now, but I have taken a quick look through the section. Each and every sentence is either chock-full of errors or plain old clumsy. That is unacceptable in a Featured Article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

PS The evidence mounts that no author of books written in the English language seems to be using Mr. Rima's mellifluence-free expressions. Could Mr. Rima be guilty of practicing "original cacophony?" Do we want OC on the Wikipedia main page? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh no! Not using English in a way that follows rules but might not be duplicated in google books! Heaven forbid! The fact that you were upset at "early works" being joined with an "and" to "early life" is troubling in the very list. You can't provide one book to verify that such is improper. The fact that you said "no one" says the phrase without searching through the over 800 results to see if it comes up only verifies that you are putting forth a sham argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh no no Mr Rima! There are indeed no authors of books written in the English language who use your exact expression, "early works and early life," (see top of the link); the 800 links you allude to are to authors who use the expressions "early life" and "early works" separately somewhere in their book. What's the big deal in that? I suggest that you not carry on this discussion in order to just have the last word. You make yourself look less and less credible. However, since I don't believe that you will actually stop, let me state that this is my final reply to your increasingly random musings. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

See, here's exactly why your complaint and any complaint here on Wikipedia by you are pure nonsense. You don't understand that "and" connects two groups of words. "Early works" is a proper set of words. "Early life" is a proper set of words. Any set of words following this pattern is grammatically correct, just like I can say jungle gyms and kookaburras without it appearing anywhere else. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Perhaps I am showing my ignorance here, but what does "Michael was the first bookseller of "reputation"..." from the Parents section mean? Is is that he was the first bookseller or repute, the first reputable bookseller, or is it something fancy that I am too ignorant to know?  :) Otherwise the article looks good - I'll have another look at it more closely later Fritzpoll (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The line it is based on Lane's (the source) phrase "the first Johnson of note in the little town" (p. 11), "a respected book-seller" (p. 10) and later "Michael Johnson may not have been the first bookseller ever to trade in Lichfield, but he was the first to achieve respect and reputation" (p. 13). The quote is used to denote Lane's word but also the general sense that it is subjective and not objective. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but feel there's a better way to handle this sentence, but it is so trivial in what seems otherwise to be a high-quality article Fritzpoll (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - issue resolved. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - have you considered using this book? Apparently, Bate is a little outdated by now, and we should be reflecting the latest scholarship, right? - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter Martin was used in part on the main Johnson page, but he offers no new details. He also admits his debt to Bate. The only difference between the two is in Martin's interpretation of a few people who Johnson knew or on some of Johnson's writing. Neither apply to this page but he is a good source for all of the other pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a side note - read the bottom of the review: "Martin's response to his subject's actual work is neither lively nor personal: few people will be tempted to have a go at Johnson's admittedly forbidding writings after reading these blandly potted accounts of them. The adroit marshalling of evidence doesn't always make for vivid narrative, and the need to cram in everything that Boswell didn't know eats into the space left over for colour and anecdote." Bate's work has been praised for a very long time, has received multiple awards, and he is a much more famous critic than Martin. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Having cleared that up, and having reviewed the article, it appears to meet all the criteria, so I support the nomination. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose pending clarification. EDIT: Struck. Steve ^{T • C} I'm sure it's just a case of providing an extra cite somewhere along the line, but do any of the sources used in the fourth paragraph of the Childhood section directly link Johnson's early ailments—and his "difficult" birth—with the severity of his TS? The paragraph uses non-Johnson-related medical sources to give contextual information about the disorder and state that such childhood events can influence its severity, alongside completely separate Johnson-specific sources that detail his "difficult and dangerous" birth and his childhood illnesses. Neither the Johnson sources or the non-Johnson medical sources seem to categorically make the link, yet how the section is presented does infer such, and this could be seen as synthesising facts from both sets of sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly supported by one alone. Steve ^{T • C} 01:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Three biographies that went into the section state Tourette Syndrome, apply medical analysis, and draw conclusions. If necessary, I can provide scans of these pages, as the issue came up during the Samuel Johnson FAC. The Pearce source is by a well known research of Tourette Syndrome and also wrote a paper on Johnson's case. More information on what is said on that can be found at Samuel Johnson's health#Tourette syndrome]] to verify what is stated there (it contains more details and direct quotes to show that it isn't synthesis). But yes, Johnson's case has come up in at least three major biographies (that I have, and a fourth according to an article in the NY Times of a new one but one I refuse to buy because it is uncritical), a handful of newspaper articles, and a few medical journal articles. Many of the sources used were either directly talking about Johnson or used by those directly talking about Johnson. I hope that explains the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I don’t doubt the sources state exactly what the section says they do. The problem comes with the presentation. The paragraph begins with Johnson's initial exhibiting of the tics that characterised his TS. It then provides context with information about how TS develops in childhood. This is OK to a point, as TS "follows a fairly reliable course in terms of the age of onset and the history of the severity of symptoms". However, the paragraph then goes on to state that "environmental, infectious, or psychosocial factors and [complications in labour]... can influence the severity of the disorder." This is cited to sources that do not appear to discuss Johnson specifically; they're speaking about TS in general terms, and there is therefore no guarantee that the sources are relevant to how Johnson's TS developed—none of the Johnson-specific sources are used at this point. Because the rest of the section does detail Johnson's troubled childhood (illnesses, environment, difficult birth), it implies a link that I'm not sure has been made by the Johnson sources. If any of them do make the link, then we should too, instead of leaving it a vague implication. Steve ^{T • C} 16:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If the off topic sources are used by other sources used, then off topic sources are perfectly acceptable for context. Let me make it more clear - biographer says "Johnson had tics which probably did this" followed by a footnote. The footnote refers to page __ of book ___ which shows that. Quoting from that study the pertinent section is not synthesis. Synthesis is creating a -new- argument and only a -new- argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And please provide where the links aren't made, because they are rather clear on who says what. I need to figure out which lines you are having problems with. The link above to the Pearce quote alone verifies that Pearce contains the basis for all of the information regardless of what the other sources say, so I don't really see how anything could be deemed synthesis. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I know I'm sometimes less than clear. You should have seen my original reply before I trimmed it down: thrice as long and containing several unnecessary digressions. I'll boil it down:

• I don't have a problem with any individual fact used in the section; it's all well-cited.
• Pearce details Johnson's childhood ailments.
• Two non-Johnson sources say how childhood ailments can (not "do") influence the severity of TS.
• Neither those or Pearce say Johnson's childhood ailments influenced the severity of his TS.
• The section implies such an influence.

If you're saying that Pearce also explicitly links Johnson's childhood ailments with the severity of his TS, then that's great and I'll happily strike my oppose if it's made clearer in the section. Steve ^{T • C} 08:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree the post hoc diagnoses of individuals who existed, in this case centuries, before the diagnoses was invented are extremely questionable and for the most part unethical by anyone in the profession. Well marshalled references specifically justifying the diagnosis in this case are needed by credible sources, that is, sources in the field competent to make a post hoc diagnosis. Otherwise, editors could be assigning diagnostic labels to historical figures right and left. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • To be clear, this is not the basis of my particular oppose; Johnson's posthumous diagnosis of having TS seems to be well-established both in this article and the parent article. Steve ^{T • C} 08:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    • If this is true, then certain aspects of his behavior, and relationships between his behavior and other known contributing factors to TS can be reasonably hypothesized, as one could to with anyone with the diagnosis, I think. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Indeed, but we shouldn't be the ones hypothesising; others are free to, and we're free to cite them. But that's as far as it should go. In the article, there is an implication that the severity of Johnson's TS was influenced by his childhood ailments. This should come from at least one reliable source, such as Pearce. At present it doesn't; Pearce is used to cite the ailments, while other sources that don't mention Johnson are used to cite that such ailments can (not unequivocally do) influence the severity. Neither makes the link between the two, so nor should we. Steve ^{T • C} 14:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I just rechecked and most of the sources such as Pearce cover both. Regardless, here are the biographies so you can see the raw information. I'm tired and I don't feel like dealing with this issue. Therefore, I wont. You have the raw information. If you think its a problem, then, well, I will state that the sources are clear on the matter and that there is no synthesis. The closing FA director/assistant director can decide which side they agree with. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Thanks, posting those is above and beyond (though we should perhaps blank that page when we're done). I promise to read those in the next few hours. Steve ^{T • C} 19:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
            • I find the hypothesizing and speculating posted on the page link above less than convincing. Especially causing unease is this statement: "This gap in the explanation of Johnson's behaviour has been readily filled by psychoanalytic account." But I will stay out of it and let others decide. A literature article is not science anyway. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
              • • Wiltshire is published by Cambridge, Demaria published by Oxford, and Martin by Harvard. The medical texts that they refer to plus Pearce and some others are published in well known medical journals. The "tics and gesticulations" form a large portion of Boswell's biography along with large chunks of the Thraliana (Hester Thrale's account of Johnson) and some of the other biographies (and in many letters and small accounts of various times). There is also a painting showing one set of gesticulations. Russell Brain, 1st Baron Brain started off much of the medical diagnosis of Johnson and applied psychological causes and the rest. This was followed by Walter Jackson Bate, an early biographytrained in psychoanalysis and a major scholar in the field, who originally associated the tics with some psychological stress before they really figured out how TS operates (the major medical works follow his biography, which is where Wiltshire, Demaria, and Martin fill in). I can count at least 25 sources discussing his Tics and at least 20 discussing them as TS. Even the NY Times discussed it ("Ungainly, scrofulous and afflicted with Tourette’s syndrome, Johnson provided the same easy target for schoolboys that he later would for caricaturists."). Convincing or not, it has been discussed by major scholars in biographical, literary, and medical fields and has no differing view-point except to the degrees of how Johnson may have been seen by others (with little difference there, just more or less application). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
                  • Good publishing houses can publish speculative science. When the information published defies the current state of knowledge on the subject, it does not matter who published it. The New York Times is not a reliable source for medical information. An article written by a professor of English is not a reliable source on whether Johnson had TS. From your sources: If Johnson's own statement that his 'unease' began in his twentieth year is accepted as including, though not necessarily comprehending, these symptoms, then this would make the onset of the disorder extraordinarily, perhaps uniquely, late. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
                    • Mattisse, please provide a source that states that Johnson does not have TS or that it would not affect him in these ways. These sources are -summarizing- medical research and studies on Johnson. If you think they are fringe (and well known fringe must still be stated), take it to the Fringe noticeboard. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• I said I was not going to make an issue of it, and I am not going to contest anything. I am merely pointing out some generalities, that a publishing house does not guarantee the relevance of information to an article etc. etc. Those things I pointed out are true and should not be used in arguments to refute. Also, as you know, the author is required to produce sources for contested information, not the opposite. The editor who questions is not required to prove a negative. And, as far as I know, these sources are summarizing studies and opinions, not "medical research" into Johnson's physical status. Medical research is published in reputable medical journals, and per WP:MEDRS should be recent, preferably not from the last century.—Mattisse (Talk) 23:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

←Ottava, you seem to have been under the impression that I'm questioning the posthumous diagnosis of TS, how Johnson's TS manifested in childhood, or both. I'm really not. The only sentence I had issue with was, "Studies suggest that non-genetic, environmental, infectious, or psychosocial factors and perinatal events, such as obstetric complications—while not causing Tourette's—can influence the severity of the disorder." This is fine in isolation, but—coupled with the surrounding statements from completely separate sources that Johnson suffered from various childhood illnesses—implied a cause and effect that was not supported by the citations as presented. If I haven't been clear on that, I apologise. There was no need to spend two hours transcribing various sources, though the effort to resolve the issue is appreciated. All that the article really required was a citation that unequivocally placed a cause and effect between Johnson's childhood physical illnesses and the initial manifesting of his TS; this would bridge the gap between the two and rid the section of the appearance of synthesis. Thankfully, that is provided by Martin, Samuel Johnson: A Biography 2008. p. 94 - referring to Johnson's bout of scrofula, "As a result of physical illness he began to show signs of the 'tics and gesticulations' that stayed with him for the rest of his life." If this is included and the surrounding text altered to more accurately accommodate what it says, that should be enough to address my concern. On a related note, I agree with comments made elsewhere that some of the fine detail about TS is not strictly necessary. In particular, the two sentences featuring OCD seem a little out of place. Perhaps the paragraph could read:

During this time, Johnson started to exhibit the tics that influenced how people viewed him in his later years; these formed the basis for his posthumous diagnosis of Tourette syndrome (TS). TS develops in childhood; it follows a fairly reliable course in terms of the age of onset and the history of the severity of symptoms. Tics may appear up to the age of eighteen, but the most typical age of onset is from five to seven. Johnson's tics and gesticulations first manifested as a result of his childhood scrofula; studies suggest that environmental and infectious factors—while not causing Tourette's—can affect the severity of the disorder. Pearce describes that Johnson's mother had a "very difficult and dangerous labour", and that Johnson had many illnesses throughout his life, "suffered from bouts of melancholy, crushing guilt, habitual insomnia, and he endured a morbid fear of loneliness and of dying", and was "disturbed by scruples of infidelity" from the age of 10.

But this is a suggestion only; the important words are "as a result" or something equally definitive. I stand by registering the oppose because the source was needed here at this article; a reader should not be expected to look through other Wikipedia articles on Johnson to find it. Another suggestion I'd make is to move Pearce's description of Johnson's "difficult and dangerous labour" to the first paragraph of the section; it seems to fit better there. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 21:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Struck oppose per this change. Good luck. Steve ^{T • C} 00:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Support This is a well-researched and engaging article. It is well-written and poetic even in places. This is the standard of Wikipedia humanities FAs that I love to see. If only I could make my virus articles such a joy to read. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support Excellent job, well-deserving of FA...Modernist (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should have a special category for "lackadaisical and indifferent masquerading as passionate support" (LIMPS). Imagine that luminous age when all you will need is: "LIMPS Modernist"! Imagine too the economy, that soul of wit, which, when summed over millions of Wikipedians, might yet save our planet from its excesses. Not to mention that brave new world teeming with FAs, all written in the wondrous experimental prose of "Samuel Johnson's early life" (especially the "Parents" and "Early Works" sections); so what if a few curmudgeons like F&f are calling it broken English. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Struck per Ceoil's request. My apologies to Modernist. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Flowler, you so out of order here; I know you are fustrated, but this is unfair. I suggest you strike or better remove you comment and apologise to Modernist, who is just caught in crossfire. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've certainly seen my share of sickly articles on FAC review, articles whose authors have the expectation that the FAC reviewers are "de facto peer reviewers" and will help fix the article on the spot. However, I've never seen a sickly article whose author blatantly insults reviewers. True, I made fun of Modernist above, but what really is the point of a one-line support vote? How does it help anyone? I mean, why even bother?

I do trust the opinion of some editors who have recently posted on the FAC talk page. Should any one of these, Malleus Fatuorum (listed as an almost-coauthor), Karanacs, and Tony1, be prepared to state that the prose in the two sections ("Parents" and "Early works") does meet the standards required of an FA, s/he will greatly assuage my concerns, and I will then cease challenging the unsupported supports in this FAC review. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments It's good, and interesting to boot. There are some nitpicks here and there, but overall I feel the prose meets 1a. A few things:
  • "However, the ritual was ineffective and an operation was performed that left him with permanent scarring across his face and body." Are you implying that they expected the ritual to get rid of the affliction? What was the operation? We need more info here.
  • "Sarah later gave birth to a second boy, Nathaniel, which put financial strain on the family." Can we rephrase this so it doesn't sound like the act of giving birth put the strain? I struggled to think of anything—maybe it's okay.
  • "Pearce describes that Johnson's mother had ..." Seems off-kilter. You wouldn't say "I described that the music was terrible." You would say "I described the music as terrible."
  • "To meet the expenses, Michael Johnson allowed his son to take a hundred books from his bookshop" I'm unclear how this meets expenses. Did Samuel sell the books for cash?
  • "but neglected a number of mandatory lectures" Hmm.. "a number of" is needlessly vague. I'd greatly prefer even "many" or "several".

--Laser brain (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

1. They believed that the ritual would work. It was a common superstition. The operation itself? Unknown. Johnson never revealed much about it. Its unfortunate, though. I believe it was just lancing and cutting pieces of flesh off his face. Source? None that I can find. 2. Well, the act of giving birth did put financial strain. But yeah, having another mouth to feed is the real item here. Changed to split the sentences. 3. Rewrote a little. 4. Johnson didn't have to pay for books that he needed for college. I changed "take" to "borrow" to remove any chance that selling of the books was involved. 5. Done. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support, it's looking great. I hope to see more in the series here. --Laser brain (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support, pending a solution for the {{when}} tag. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice when that was slipped in. I'm surprised someone asked because it stated "after 6 months" immediately before. I assume Ottre added it. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:05, 4 April 2009 [38].

---

Tree Sparrow

Nominator(s): jimfbleak (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been a long time in gestation, but I think it's ready now jimfbleak (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note although the disambig link highlights Isotherm, the meaning referred to does not have a separate page as such. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• removed isotherm and rephrased without technical term jimfbleak (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I'm IARing on the stamp site, I figure it's not that contentious of information) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• What's IAR please?

WP:IAR or Ignore all rules. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, makes sense now (: jimfbleak (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Technical Review

• Disambiguation links are up to standards as checked with the links checker tool.
• There is one external link that is dead, I'm not sure whether this is the one Ealdgyth was referring to.

• None dead for me, but removed IBC since misdirected jimfbleak (talk)

• Ref 35 is dead.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• OK, fixed now, don't know how that one died jimfbleak (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS script)

• The following WP:REFNAME is used more than once to name a ref; a ref name should only name 1 specific ref.

• lind--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, added this ref after all the copyedits etc, careless error, fixed now jimfbleak (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments. Jim, as always, this is a well-researched article; WP:BIRDS does a nice job with their articles. However, I'm wondering about the referencing. In most of the references, the author's last name comes first, but this isn't at all standardized: I found eight refs where the situation was reversed. I'd make some changes myself, but I thought perhaps there was a reason behind the unorthodox referencing. Here are the ones I found on a cursory inspection:

Kelly A. Lee; Lynn B. Martin II; Martin C. Wikelski

Peter Shurulinkov and Vassil Golemansky

Peter Puchala

Sandro Bertolino; Elena Ghiberti; Aurelio Perrone

Peter Berthold

Ján Obuch; Anton Kristin

M. Shao; T. Hounsome; N. Liu

David Costantini; Stefania Casagrande; Giuseppe Di Lieto; Alberto Fanfani; Giacomo Dell’Omo

Firsfron of Ronchester 23:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• mea culpa I checked references added by other editors for formatting, but missed this, all fixed now plus some minor punctuation tweaks jimfbleak (talk) 06:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. I appreciate the fixes. I'll be going through the article in the next couple of days. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction. Compare In Australia, it is found in some rural and semi-rural districts, but not cities with what the first sentence two paragraphs up: In Australia, the Tree Sparrow is present in Melbourne. 3.8 million people is definitely a city by anyone's definition. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, misrepresented source, now reads - In Australia, the Tree Sparrow is largely an urban bird, and it is the House Sparrow which utilises more natural habitats. jimfbleak (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Some confusion here: Although initially successful, the "great sparrow campaign" had overlooked the numbers of locusts and other insect pests consumed by the birds, and crop yields fell, exacerbating a famine which led to the deaths of 30 million people between 1959 and 1961. The Tree Sparrow can have other beneficial effects on agriculture. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that the death of 30 million people is a dubious benefit! Now reads - The Tree Sparrow's consumption of insects has led to its use in agriculture to control fruit tree pests and the common asparagus beetle... jimfbleak (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - My concerns and observations have been fully addressed. If the potential problems listed below can be fixed, there's no reason the inaptly named Passer montanus shouldn't be a Featured Article. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the careful review and support jimfbleak (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - When I was a boy, my garden was full of these delightful little birds, but sadly no longer. Which brings me to just one small nit-pick, the Tree Sparrow's extensive range and large population mean that it is not endangered globally, I don't like "mean that" very much. How about "ensure" that? Well done. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Graham, change made - we had the first one for 20 years this winter! jimfbleak (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - (moral only due to WP:COI via WP:BIRD membership) have looked over this article several times and think a few sentences can be simplified/shortened. This one This sparrow is distinctive even within its genus in that, unlike its relatives, it has no plumage differences between the sexes; is a candidate with several its and probably can do without the need to inform that reader that species within a genus are related. Shyamal (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Shyamal, good suggestion. I've fixed that one, I'll see if any other surplus words can be removed jimfbleak (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - (probably moral only due to WP:COI via WP:BIRD membership) I have read this before and suggested some tweaks, but I think it is at the stage (for me) where any further changes are so minor and equivocal in their imporvement as not to be worth mentioning (and I forgot what they were as I have been delayed by a dodgy internet connection). I think it is over the line in terms of prose, comprehensiveness. referencing etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nitpicks

• The family (Passeridae in this case) usually warrants a mention in the lead, espacially as there are two families of birds with many members known as 'sparrows'.

added. although I'm not fully convinced since it's just a redirect to sparrow

• In Distribution and habitat, second paragraph It was introduced successfully to Sardinia, eastern Indonesia, the Philippines and many Pacific islands, but introductions to New Zealand and Bermuda did not take root. - which Pacific islands? The Pacific is vast, but I have no recollection of Tree Sparrows occurring in Polynesia and I know they don't in Melanesia; so Micronesia and Hawaiii then?

changed to Micronesia, I overgeneralised jimfbleak (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Also in that section Ship-carried birds colonised Borneo and Brunei. Brunei is a country in Borneo, so it reads like colonised Britain and Wales or something.

It's what the source said, but you're obviously right, fixed jimfbleak (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• In status the range is described as includes at least 48,000 km² in Africa alone yet the map shows they have barely a toehold in Morocco. is that correct?

It's what iucn say, but I agree that it's suspect, and why Africa for a Eurasian species? I've chopped that bit jimfbleak (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Overall this is good, I'll give it another read soon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Question: Just out of curiousity, you say that "In North America, a population of about 15,000 birds has become established around St. Louis and neighbouring parts of Illinois and southeastern Iowa. These sparrows are descended from 12 birds imported from Germany and released in late April 1870 as part of a project to enhance the native North American avifauna. As elsewhere, the US Tree Sparrows have to compete with the House Sparrow in urban centres and they are therefore mainly found in parks, farms and rural woods.[8][21] The American population is sometimes referred to as the "German Sparrow", to distinguish it from both the native American Tree Sparrow species and the much more widespread "English" House Sparrow."

• I am not clear what you are saying about the Tree sparrow in North America. Are you saying, by implication ("15,000" isn't that many, if they started multiplying in 1870) that they are clustered around St. Louis and neighbouring parts, and sparse elsewhere? Or are they found in fair numbers "in parks, farms, and rural woods", which actually covers most of the United States and Canada? —Mattisse (Talk) 01:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Unlike the House Sparrow, they have never really broken out of the original area. rephrased for clarity as Within its limited US range, the Tree Sparrow has to compete ... jimfbleak (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Image review as follow:

• File:Tree Sparrow Japan Flip.jpg: could we not use the original File:Tree Sparrow August 2007 Osaka Japan.jpg in the Infobox? MOS:IMAGES advises not to simply flip photos just to face the text (and if there is a convincing reason to do so, the photo caption must indicate the image has been altered as such).

Answering since that image was flipped by me and feel that Tree Sparrows show much greater bilateral symmetry (unlike Wrybills) than human faces and think that the MOS deals more with human portrait flips. Shyamal (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Shyamal, just looks odd facing out jimfbleak (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In that case, per MOS:IMAGES, the caption should point out to the reader that such images have been altered. Jappalang (talk) 07:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've done that with a link to the original jimfbleak (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• File:Tree-Sparrow-2009-16-02.jpg: as above, could we not use the original File:Tree-Sparrow.jpg?

As above jimfbleak (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed as with previous jimfbleak (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• File:Passermontanusmap.png: what is the base map for this (i.e. the map of the continents)?

Added to image page; I didn't put in in originally since I noticed some other maps seemed to omit the balnk map details jimfbleak (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• File:Tree of sparrows.jpg: hmmm, do we have to do what Fir00002 requests for the use of his image? He asks that we should place his name in attribution in prominence next to the image...

Is that something we do at all on Wikipedia? I've never noticed credits in the caption before. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, some articles have them for certain images. For example, check out Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, particularly File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg (to be fair, this is a copyrighted photo). Jappalang (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have seen discussions on commons resulting in the deletion of images if such conditions are being imposed against the concept of "freedom". Shyamal (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

When this has come up before, it's been considered that attribution on the image page meets this request jimfbleak (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• File:Spurvehoeg.jpg: I am not certain if Leif Boldings has uploaded this to Wikipedia. I have sent him an email to clarify the situation. In the meantime, how about File:Sparrowhawk-Male.JPG, which clearly shows a sparrow killed by a hawk (the branches in the foreground are a bit distracting, but the moment of the kill, the sparrow clearly distinguishable, seems to make up for everything)?

excellent, image changed jimfbleak (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The rest of the images are verifiably in public domain or released under appropriate licenses. Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the image review, your concerns are fixed now I hope. MoS for images really needs rationalising. If you don't reverse images, you're told they should be facing in, if you do reverse, you shouldn't have done it just to have them facing in... (: Ah well, such is life... jimfbleak (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No problems. As for the MOS, I read it as stating that the "facing text" and "alternation" are desirable characteristics; they should be strived for unless some restrictions (e.g. Infobox placement, no casual "flipping" of image, possible misrepresentation of subject, etc) prevent such an arrangement. Such are the problems with aesthetics, I suppose... Jappalang (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:05, 4 April 2009 [39].

---

Manchester Mummy

Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum 04:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

A short but I believe nevertheless comprehensive account of the events following the death of Hannah Beswick, a woman whose pathological fear of premature burial led to her mummified body being put on public display in 19th-century Manchester. Please be kind to dear Hannah. Malleus Fatuorum 04:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - I've always been intrigued by short articles at FAC, so here are a few quick comments. Feel free to ignore at your discretion.
• Following her death in 1758 her body was embalmed and kept above ground, to be periodically checked for signs of life. - That comma could easily be removed.
• The method of embalming was not recorded, but it probably involved replacing the blood with a mixture of turpentine and vermilion. - "Probably" → "likely"?
• However, Beswick's will, dated 25 July 1757, less than a year before her death, states only that White was to receive £100 (£10,900 as of 2009),[8] and that £400 (£43,600 as of 2009)[8] was to be allocated for funeral expenses. - The commas are abundant in this sentence; perhaps some of them could be substituted with dashes?
• Is there any more biographical information on Beswick herself?

I look forward to supporting. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Reply
  • The comma could certainly be removed, but I think it ought to stay, as there are two separate ideas here; that her body was embalmed and kept above ground, and the reason why.
  • I prefer "probably" to "likely", but the meaning is the same in either case.
  • You're right about the blizzard of commas, so I've slightly rejigged that sentence.
  • There appears to be no more biographical information on Beswick, or at least none that I've been able to find. Her fame rests on her mummification and subsequent display.

Thanks for your comments. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Provisional support, pending a final read-through in the morning. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Sasata

• I think it should be mentioned in the lead that she was wealthy

• Should not a period follow after the honorific Dr, or alternatively be spelled out?

• "Some years before her own death, one of Beswick's brothers, John,..." Brother to John Beswick senior, or to Hannah? (Unclear because both are discussed in the previous sentence)

• "Alternatively it has been suggested that White was considerably in debt to Beswick, a debt that would have to be repaid after the funeral, which was avoided by her embalming." How would he repay a debt to a dead person?

• Is it known what relationship Mary Graeme and Esther Robinson had to Hannah Beswick?

• Perhaps wikilink resin?

• "One of the few contemporary accounts is provided by Philip Wentworth..." Accounts of what?

• "...it was decided that, despite Beswick's fear of being buried alive, she was "irrevocably and unmistakably dead". Despite is used to imply a contradiction between two propositions, but I fail to see the contradiction here.

• Is the name of the Secretary of State who issued the burial known?

• Why did the Bishop of Manchester have to give permission for the burial?

• Why did the Bonnie Prince's arrival make Hannah apprehensive? Did he have a reputation for plundering money from the well-to-do?

• What year did the weaver find the loot? What was the total $ he received from Oliphant's?

• What year was Birchin Bower demolished?

• MOS nitpicking: should ref 4 say pp. instead of p. (pages plural)

• refs 18 and 21 missing ending period

• no page # or year for ref 19

• Bondeson 2001 does not have all-capitals title, unlike the others

• Reply
  • I've added "wealthy" to Hannah's description in the lead.
  • The MoS allows for either Dr or Dr.[40]
  • Clarified that the John being discussed was Hannah's brother, not her father's brother.
  • He would have been required to repay the debt to the dead person's estate, but that was just listed as one of the various accounts of the events following Beswick's death. There's no evidence that there was any debt to be repaid anyway.
  • The source doesn't elaborate on what relationship Mary Graeme and Esther Robinson had to Hannah Beswick, and very likely neither did the will. The important point is that White wasn't one of the executors.
  • Resin now wikilinked.
  • I've changed "accounts" to "accounts of her" for clarification.
  • I've rewritten the "despite ..." sentence.
  • I would be pretty confident that the Secretary of State referred to is Gathorne Gathorne-Hardy, 1st Earl of Cranbrook, but the source doesn't name him, so neither have I.
  • Again, the sources don't say why the permission of the Bishop of Manchester was needed. I could speculate about consecrated ground and so on, but ... I'd imagine that a surviving next of kin would normally be asked to give permission for a burial, but she'd died 110 years earlier ...
  • I don't suppose that Hannah was apprehensive about Bonnie Prince Charlie himself, but about the invading Scottish army he was leading.
  • The sources don't say what year the weaver found the loot, if indeed he did find it in the way described. That's why I hedged it with "it is claimed". It's at least as likely that he was money-laundering I suppose, and just used Hannah's story as a convenient cover. I'm merely reporting what the sources claim.
  • The date of Birchin Bower's demolition isn't mentioned in any of the sources, but it was certainly before the 1980s, when the Ferranti factory was built.
  • p changed to pp.
  • All refs now end with a period.
  • Year and page number added to ref #19.
  • Title of Bondeson's book capitalised to match the other book titles.

Thanks for your comments. One of the significant difficulties with this article has been in sifting through "the innacuracies and contradictions" of the events following Beswick's death, propagated on all sorts of cooky web sites. Hard facts have been pretty hard to come by, and I really do believe that this article summarises pretty much all that can be verified about those events. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support I believe you, I tried looking for more info on some historical academic databases I have access to but came up short. Nice article. Sasata (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Technical Review

• Disambiguation and external links all check out up to standards with the respective links checker tool.
• Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS script)

• The following ref (code pasted below) is duplicated and appears more than once in the ref section, use a WP:REFNAME instead.

• {{Harvnb|Clendening|2005|p=325.}}--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• Done. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - I read this fascinating, short article the other day, but I forgot to comment. This could have been merely anecdotal, but it is an engaging, concise, well-written and researched article. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Image review: corrected some incorrect stuff on the two public domain images, both are okay now. Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for making those modifications Jappalang, very much appreciated. I owe you one. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 11:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I read this one when it went live, but didn't realise it was at FAC. Says everything that needs to be said about the subject, and couldn't say it better.Iridescent :  Chat  19:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Support -this article is fascinating and well written. 195.188.23.230 (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Support great article! 123abcdoreme3 (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:05, 4 April 2009 [41].

---

Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell

Nominator(s): Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My first article on a contemporary book - of course, that book is about the early nineteenth century and written in the style of that time (I just couldn't bring myself to leave Jane Austen et. al. entirely). A note on the lengthy plot summary - the novel is 800 pages long and the length of the plot summary is in line with others (see here for a lengthy comparison with other FA plot summaries). Thanks to my peer reviewers for their detailed and helpful suggestions and to Ealdgyth for advising me on the use of sources here. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - my concerns with the sourcing are mentioned there on the link. I'm on the fence about http://www.sfsite.com and http://www.contemporarywriters.com/awards/?&skip=500, and will leave them to other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I am one of the aforethanked peer reviewers, and as I said during that process, this is a great article. Thorough research and engaging prose. It's been an interesting experience to see Awadewit — with all of her extensive training in JSTOR and primary sources from centuries ago — wrangle with newspaper reviews and online commentary. I think, especially given the relative dearth of resources available for this article, that the SFSite and CW references are fine. Scartol • Tok 12:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I, too, had the honor of peer reviewing this exceptional article. I haven't read the book yet, but after reading this article, I intend to do so very soon. Awadewit has done a good job with the limited and often weak sources available. It's difficult to write a high-quality article with only "contemporary" sources, but she has risen to the challenge. I think this article is a good model of how to create a featured article with limited resources. --Christine (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not sure I understand the citation "Clarke, "Praise for Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell"." Is that part of the foreword of the novel? If so, maybe the novel title should be in the citation to reduce confusion. I would also encourage the use of the novel title in the other Clarke citations, as it's likely at some point in the distant future that Clarke might write something else about this novel that might then get cited in the article. In other words, it would help future-proof the citations. Although this isn't so much of an issue for your usual articles, I think it's an important consideration for a modern work whose article may still evolve as more is written about the work. Kaldari (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Good idea - done. Awadewit (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Image query Image:Jonathan strange and mr norrell cover.jpg may not reach the threshold of originality, could this be licenced as free? Fasach Nua (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Uncertain about that. Is the raven/crow silhouette an original drawing or a stock item (readily found on sites that offer royalty-free graphics)? Jappalang (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know for sure. I used the non-free license because I wasn't totally sure. Awadewit (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• I dont know if free is licencing is possible, I think it is borderline. It could upload it to commons, and see if it is deleted it or not? WP unfortunetly doesnt have a forum for this question, commons are where the experts are Fasach Nua (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, let's try that. Awadewit (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've uploaded it to Commons and started a thread here. Awadewit (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Apparently it is subject to copyright. I have now put the Commons image up for deletion. The image in the article is still the fair use version, so the Wikipedia article is stable. Awadewit (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• I am content with the images as they are, I would prefer free images, but clearly that is not possible, and will not oppose if the image is deleted Fasach Nua (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Image review: all "free" images are verifiably so; non-free images are used appropriately and covered by proper rationales. Jappalang (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Technical Review -- Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS script), and the disambiguation and external links all check out up to standards.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support: I had a long session with this at peer review and have left myself nothing to say here. A quality article in every respect, a dead cert for TFA some time soon. Brianboulton (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support with suggestions 1) "Christopher Hampton, who adapted the Academy Award-winning screenplay for Dangerous Liaisons" reads oddly to me (I expect the object of "adapt" to be affected, not effected). Would something along the lines of "whose adaptation of Les Liaisons Dangereuses had won an Academy Award" be better? (now dealt with). 2) I miss Norrell's removal of magician status from the gentleman magicians at the beginning of the plot summary. N p holmes (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• 1) I've changed the sentence regarding Hampton. Awadewit (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• 2) There are two reasons I chose not include that part of the plot: 1) We would have to explain that Segundus was exempted from that contract, thus necessitating a digression on a rather minor plot points. 2) Most of these magicians (with the exception of Honeyfoot and Segundus) do not return later in the novel, so I felt that explaining their circumstances was not vital. While the event does show Norrell's desire to keep magic for himself, I tried to show this later when I explained that he took on Strange as a pupil but refused to teach him all he, Norrell, knew. What are your thoughts on this? Awadewit (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

But the plot summary doesn't mention anything that would necessitate mentioning that Segundus was exempted. It feels thematically important somehow (the opposite of the democratisation of magic at the end); but maybe themes don't matter in a plot summary, and I see that Clarke has given you difficulties enough there with her "gentleman with thistledown hair". N p holmes (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Segundus is a major character in the novel because he doesn't sign the contract, though. Thus, in mentioning the contract, we would have to mention Segundus's decision. I agree that it would be nice to mention this point to emphasize the "elite" vs. "democratic" strains in the novel, but the plot summary section is generally more about the events of the novel than the themes. I was hoping that the "Themes" section would be a supplement to the "Plot" section, rather than a repetition of it. My greatest worry regarding the plot summary is that someone who has not read the book will not be able to follow it. Awadewit (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Pending Support - I think this is a fine and engaging article, especially given the difficulties in tracking down sources. I do have a few questions and comments, mostly just small things. Regarding plot questions, especially, I realise we don't want the summary section to become too weighed down with detail, so if some of these suggestions seem unnecessary, feel free to say so. :) My apologies if these points were already discussed at the peer review - I haven't had a chance to read through it yet.

• Plot vol. I. "...Mr Norrell, who moves to London to revive practical English magic." This is indeed his stated goal, but I'm not sure it brings across his controlling nature adequately. He's not really interested in sharing his knowledge, and he works to suppress knowledge and discourage would-be magicians. Can we add some mention of this aspect of his personality?

Do you think adding a sentence about his library and his desire to keep all books of magic to himself would be good? Perhaps this could be added somewhere at the beginning of the "Vol. 1" section? Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that would work fine. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Now reads: The group is stunned to learn of a "practising magician", Mr Gilbert Norrell, who owns a large collection of "books of magic"; he has spent years purchasing these books in order to keep them out of the hands of others. Awadewit (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I combined the clauses into a single sentence (feel free to revert if you feel it doesn't work), but I'm satisfied on this point. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"...rarely speaking and verging on incoherence when she does." I think this possibly needs a touch of clarification. As worded it sounds as though she's speaking gobbledegook or is incapable of completing her sentences.

I had a very hard time writing his part. What happens, of course, is that she tells one story when she means to tell another, which appears as non-sequiturs as to the other characters. Could you suggest a rewording? Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What about "Emma (now Lady Pole) lapses into lassitude. She rarely speaks, and her attempts to communicate her situation are confounded by magic."? I can try to word this more specifically, but it conveys the fact that she's under a spell that prevents her from communicating. Maybe that's all we need here? It's not the easiest thing to sum up accurately, I'm finding. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me - I've altered the article. It is quite difficult to explain concisely, isn't? Awadewit (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You know it. I came up with at least half a dozen short and not-so-short explanations, and they all sounded terrible. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Plot vol. III. "Eternal Night" - I think there should be a brief explanation as what precisely this entails.

I've described it as an "an eerie darkness that engulfs him and follows him wherever he goes". Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That works. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"In England, there is a magical renaissance." Why?

Do you think I should say "In England, there is a magical renaissance, as John Uskglass returns, unbeknownst to the characters in the novel."? Hm. The thing is that this renaissance confuses Strange and Norrell - do you think we should explicitly explain it in the plot summary? Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to be overly explicit, but we should make some explanation, even if it's brief. What about something along the lines of "In England, the return of John Uskglass sparks a magical Renaissance; Strange and Norrell fail to grasp its significance, despite their knowledge of magic."

"Strange and Norrell remain bound together..." Why? How and when did this happen?

I've rewritten the ending: Strange asks Norrell to help him undo Arabella's enchantment by summoning John Uskglass. Although they initially believe that they have succeeded, they later come to believe that their contact with John Uskglass was accidental; as a result of their magics, Strange and Norrell remain bound together—they cannot leave the "Eternal Night" or each other. They do succeed in sending Arabella to Padua, where Flora is waiting for her. After the spells of the gentleman with thistle-down hair are broken, Stephen becomes the king of the Faerie domain, Lost-Hope. Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to clarify how Norrell wound up in the darkness in the first place. Otherwise, I think we're done. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Genre. "To create this effect, the novel includes many references..." Is there a way to avoid the repetition of the phrase "such as" in this sentence?

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Historical otherness. "...like Lady Pole, Stephen is silenced." Might it be worth pointing out that both characters are silenced in the same way literally as well as metaphorically?

• I added Both "suffer under a silencing spell that mimics gaps in the historical record". Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Overall, a solid article. Excellent work. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've struck a couple of the completed items above; still working over a couple of the others. There are a couple of passages I'd like to reread to refresh my memory, and I seem to have left the book in my desk at work. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. Marvellous to see such a thorough article on a recent novel. Awadewit has grappled valiantly and fastidiously (she will not go beyond her sources, even though she could probably write a better review of the book than most of the reviewers she cites) with the task of compiling an accurate article from the news information available to her. All kudos. I made my comments at the Peer Review, and the article has improved since then. The only thing I would suggest, reading the additions, is that "George Rowlandson" should probably be Thomas Rowlandson. qp10qp (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, I know! Unfortunately, the source actually has "George Rowlandson"! Am I allowed to correct that? Pretty please? Awadewit (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think so, because if the source already spoke of "important nineteenth-century illustrators", there is your get out (because there is no important nineteenth-century illustrator called George Rowlandson). You could cover this in a note. It looks to me like it must be a typing error, on the heels of "George Cruikshank", so perhaps Clute would thank you. qp10qp (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Done - I'm so relieved! Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Question In the peer review you say "this article is so bad". Why then should it be featured? --Peter Andersen (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Articles can only be as good as their sources. The sources for this article are terrible. Book reviewers do not take the time to carefully analyze the novel, I'm afraid; they only offer facile conclusions. However, as of this time, there is only one academic article on Jonathan Strange. The question has repeatedly been raised at FAC whether we should promote articles when the sources themselves do not make for a good article. The answer has always been "yes". I offer this article as yet another test case of whether we should question that answer. Awadewit (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:05, 4 April 2009 [42].

---

Battle of Tippecanoe

Nominator(s): Charles Edward (Talk) 17:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

After several weeks of editing and research, a GA review and an A class review, I believe this article is now worthy of Featured status. I appreciate any feedback. Thanks! Charles Edward (Talk) 17:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - This is looking really good. The prose is generally clear and engaging. I did a small bit of tweaking, but overall I found little to fault. Nice work! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Technical Review

• Disambiguation and external links check out with the links checker tool.
• Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS script)

• Some refs use more than 1 page to source, so instead of p. 6-7, it should be pp. 6-7
• The following refs (code pasted below) are duplicated and appear in the ref section more than once, a WP:REFNAME should be used instead

• Funk, p. 30
• Langguth, p. 169--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have corrected these items. Charles Edward (Talk) 15:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Image review File:Battle of tippecanoe, battlefield map.jpg - The image description page needs to include a source for this map per WP:IUP Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• The source is: Funk, Arville L (©1969, revised 1983). A Sketchbook of Indiana History. Rochester, Indiana: Christian Book Press, pages 27 & 28. It was on the page already, just in the incorrect spot. I have moved it. Charles Edward (Talk) 19:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• All images have adequte descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Leaning towards support - In general, I found this a well-written article. I checked my university library, which has an extensive collection of Indiana-related material, and I found a few scattered books on Tippecanoe, but none that looked particularly promising for this article - many were simply spiffy guidebooks. I was really surprised at the dearth of material on this battle.

• Is it possible to replace instances of "Indian" with the specific tribe name? If not, should not "Indian" be replaced with "Native American"? I noticed that the term is occasionally used in the article.
  • Done. For the most part, it was actually a group of tribes, the primary leaders though were mostly Shawnee. Charles Edward (Talk) 18:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sometimes Tenskwatawa is referred to as the "Prophet" and sometimes as "Tenskwatawa" - could this be standardized to avoid confusion? I would suggest using "Tenskwatawa", as that is his name.
  • Done, Tenskwatawa means something like "Open-Door", it was a title or name he took on himself. The Americans labeled him "the Prophet" because of his religious teachings. Charles Edward (Talk) 18:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Why did people in 1811 believe that the Indians were being supported by the British? Were they? The article does not seem to indicate that. This is the point that confused me the most in reading the article.
  • They were in fact encouraging the tribes the make trouble, and did supply them firearms - but the tribes were very reluctant to accept their help at first, and most of the tribal leaders shunned them. Tecumseh's group being the primary exception. The situation is explained in more detail in the article Tecumseh's War. The papers had been carrying anti-British propaganda for nearly a year, and the War Hawks had been pushing for war before the battle occurred. This situation was really already a powderkeg with Britain, and although their role here was minor, it just a straw that broke the camel's back. Charles Edward (Talk) 18:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Could this be explained in the "Background" section? Awadewit (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. Charles Edward (Talk) 02:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
        • This is very helpful. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right about lack of sources. I was unable to find anything written within the last 75 years that was dedicated to the battle. Most of the sourcing came from the three books you see in the article, each of them with a few pages worth of information on the battle. Langguth puts in in context with the larger war of 1812, Owens puts it in context of Harrison's life, and Funk is written from the perspective of the American soldiers and gives the best step by step description of the battle. Charles Edward (Talk) 18:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed to full support. Awadewit (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - with comments. This an engaging and generally well-written article, but it does seem a little under-referenced. I appreciate that reliable sources may be few and far between, but could more use be made of the ones listed? There are many occasions, such as "they discovered and scalped the bodies of 36 warriors" which cry out for a citation. I spotted few problems with the prose; redundancy "in order to", "so it could qualify" (for it to qualify), "while about 126 were less seriously hurt" (and about 126..), "in an 1816 conversion with Lewis Cass, the Governor of Michigan" (does this mean "conversation"?. Graham Colm ^Talk 15:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have addressed the specific concerns you have listed, and would be glad to expand referencing wherever you believe it may be lacking. The info in the paragraphs are all from the citations listed at the end of each paragraph, I have tried to place them also at positions required by guidelines. To move them to specific statements would take me a few minutes to look at which book the info was from, but for the most parts the paragraphs are a blending of all three sources. Charles Edward (Talk) 17:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.