Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2009

June 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 22:48, 27 June 2009 [1].

---

H.M.S. Pinafore

Nominator(s): Ssilvers (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it satisfies the FA criteria. After GA review, the article has benefitted from extensive peer review comments. Two other Gilbert and Sullivan operas are FA articles: Trial by Jury and Thespis (opera). -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support I'm one of the peer reviewers, who dabbles in the G&S articles now and then, though I'm not a member of the wikiproject. The article is engaging, well researched, comprehensive and well illustrated. It is a good resource either for the casual reader or for the person knowledgeable about the opera. It's well deserving of the star.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support This seems a good well-written and comprehensive article, covering virtually every possible angle of its subject. I only have two little niggles with phrasing:

In the Lead this phrase seems poorly structured: "..although her father intends her to marry the First Lord of the Admiralty, Sir Joseph Porter, the cabinet minister in charge of Britain's Royal Navy."

It might be better as: "..although her father intends her to marry Sir Joseph Porter, the First Lord of the Admiralty and the cabinet minister in charge of Britain's Royal Navy."

The following sentence in the Background section seems over-long and confusing: "Because Gilbert, Sullivan and Carte produced the show with their own financial support, instead of writing a piece for production by a theatre proprietor as was usual in Victorian theatres, they were able to choose their own cast of performers, rather than being obliged to use the actors already engaged at the theatre."

This might be better as two sentences, eg: "Instead of writing a piece for production by a theatre proprietor, as was usual in Victorian theatres, Gilbert, Sullivan and Carte produced the show with their own financial support. They were therefore able to choose their own cast of performers, rather than being obliged to use the actors already engaged at the theatre." Xandar 23:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Good ideas. I made the second change exactly as you suggested. In the first case, I simplified the sentence, since the link already tells us that the position of First Lord is a cabinet post. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I look forward to seeing this article on the front page. Xandar 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support From the POV of someone who knows nothing about the subject matter, I found this well-written article to be very informative. LargoLarry (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• I don't have any word-count tools, but the article is 115KB, which might be a little too long. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Not counting references, the word count is 11,297. Is there a limit to length? 67.79.157.50 (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support: I don't know the basis of the above wordcount. According to the "Page size" tool the current count is 9,931, which is long but not super-long. I would be against the article expanding any further (it was 7,629 words when I finished my peer review on 25 April), but I can live with it as it is. My peer review comments were extensive and have been acted on. My only remaining quibble is that non-breaking spaces have not been implemented, for 571 performances (twice), 178 performances, 10,000 copies, 91 performnces, and possibly other cases too. I suggest these are fixed. Otherwise hunky-dory. Brianboulton (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. - I caught a couple more numbers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support The article is comprehensive and informative. Slfarrell (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. (To declare an interest, I am a member of the wikiproject but have had minimal input to this particular article.) Readable, informative, no superfluous information, well-balanced, excellently referenced. I agree with Wehwalt's comments, above. Tim riley (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support I'm very impressed with the care and detail the editors have taken in preparing this article. It is comprehensive, well-written, and well-researched. They are to be commended for producing such a wonderful article on such an important work and we should applaud the excellent article they have produced. All of my questions and suggestions were addressed at the peer review. All I can still suggest is to replace the Prestige source with another one, since conference collections are not the best sources and the FA criteria asks us to rely on "high-quality" sources. As Brianboulton pointed out in the peer review, there are other sources with the same information. Awadewit (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Image review - All images have good descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support for reasons already given. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Note, Marc Shepherd was a contributor to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful note, Ss! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return. I noted GASBAG, but there may be others.

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What makes the following reliable sources?

• http://www.dgillan.screaming.net/stage/th-frames.html?http&&&www.dgillan.screaming.net/stage/th-longr.html

Don Gillan is the author of the book Of Boars and Bantams, A Pictorial History of Bradford City AFC. His non-profit, educational website provides extensive information about Victorian and Edwardian era theatre. It includes numerous biographies and picture galleries of actresses of the era, reprints of Victorian news items about the theatre, extensive postcard histories, and articles about historical subject of the era. This part of the website is a unique compilation of information that he has gleaned from The Theatre magazine and presented in a convenient table format available nowhere else. The website is praised here and linked to here and here, among other places. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This was so good a rebuttal that you now have your first G&S entry in my FAC cheatsheet, here! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.culturevulture.net/Opera/HMSPinafore.htm

Culture Vulture is an arts review website established in 1998. Its publisher and editor is Michael Wade Simpson, of Santa Fe, New Mexico. He holds a BA in Journalism from the University of Southern California. He is a published author and was a teaching fellow at Smith College, where he received his MFA in choreography. While living in the Bay Area for 15 years, he wrote about dance for the San Francisco Chronicle and other periodicals. In 2005, he was a NEA Fellow at the Dance Critics Institute, American Dance Festival. For culturevulture.net, he reviews dance, theatre and film. The website also publishes the reviews of critics, writers and academics listed here. The article cited is a 2005 review of a performance by NYGASP at Wolf Trap.

I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean reliable Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• http://cnb-host4.clickandbuild.com/cnb/shop/musicalcollectablesltd?listPos=6&op=catalogue-products&prodCategoryID=43 -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This cite is the exclusive dealer for recordings of the The Gilbert and Sullivan Opera Company and is cited merely for the proposition that this recording exists and is available here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I figured it was for the listing of the fact the recording was available, a red flag was why this wasn't from a more mainstream source. Now I know! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.thejudyroom.com/discography/soundtracks/icgos.html

This extensive Judy Garland website and discography is edited by Scott Brogan and Eric Hemphill. See this about Brogan, mentioning Hemphill. Brogan is a member of the research committee for the San Francisco Silent Film Festival and also a designer of the official Liza Minelli website. He has published essays on the silent films of Douglas Fairbanks, Lillian Gish, Marion Davies, and William Haines. This website is extensively cited on the internet, and a google search reveals over 5,000 links. Among other accolades, the site has received the Gold Site Award from starpages.net. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I"ll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. I'm utterly on the fence about it.

This is the fact cited to it: "Judy Garland sings "I Am the Monarch of the Sea" in the 1963 film, I Could Go On Singing.". Awadewit (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This book makes the same point and would likely be considered a better source, I think.[2]--Slp1 (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The link doesn't work. What does it say? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny; works great for me. Try this one [3]. It sources the sentence perfectly.--Slp1 (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll just change the ref myself; since I can verify it without problem.--Slp1 (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the second one works OK. Please do go ahead. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks good, I think. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

May i just point out how excellent the presentation of these rebuttals was! Concise, gave me all the information I needed and very helpful! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I aim to please! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support I am less concerned with all the technical details than I am with the content of the article, which I think is well-written and answers any questions I may have had about this particular G&S piece. Congratulations to all the editors who helped bring it to its present state. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- a well-referenced and thorough article. I have a couple suggestions.

In the fifth sentence of Act One of the Synopsis, it's a little unclear who Dick is: "His fellow sailors (excepting Dick) offer their sympathies, but they can give Ralph little hope that his love will ever be returned." The character list above the synopsis clarifies that he is indeed a character, but shouldn't there be a few adjectives or something describing his personality and hinting at his future contributions to the story? There's a description of him later in the act; could it be moved up, or do we really not know much about his character until that point?

Super idea. I have moved the description up as you suggest. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"Josephine enters and reveals to her father that she loves a humble sailor in his crew, but she is a dutiful daughter." The second half of this sentence needs some clarification. When I read, "but she is a dutiful daughter," I want it to continue, "so she..." or "and will..." or something like that. How will being a dutiful daughter affect her actions? Maybe "she assures him that she is a dutiful daughter" would be better too.

Quite right! I have adopted your suggestion! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That's minor stuff, though. It's a great article. MarianKroy (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reliable sources questions need to be resolved (did reviewers who supported before Ealdgyth's reviews check the sources?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes - I checked every single one at the peer review. Unless there are new sources, my only issues with the sources are reflected in my above statement. Awadewit (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - well-written article, with good organization bringing together a significant amount of references. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

(I was given a notice about this FAC at my talk page, but have not been involved with it.) Cirt (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - One of Wikipedia's best. Impressive organization given the extensive sources. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I am very familiar with the opera and its history, but my only dealings with the article have been a few comments and suggestions. There is a massive amount of information here that I was unaware of, and it all makes for a very good read. I've looked through it again and have a few niggles:
• 2nd para of the lead: a) why not "a lower-class sailor, Ralph Rackstraw"? b) next sentence: Ralph is encouraged to declare his love, not to elope (which he couldn't do by himself, anyway). The decision to elope is made by both parties after Ralph threatens to kill himself.

Good comments! Done. -- User:Ssilvers

• Background section, end of 2nd para: what exactly is signified by "[T]hey"? Should the square brackets be round the whole word, or, if not, what is the unquoted word that ends "...hey"?

Fixed, thanks. -- User:Ssilvers

• First Lord of the Admiralty: Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty says that the position of First Lord had been held by a politician since 1806, so Sir Joseph isn't exactly a unique case. It might be worth noting this in a footnote somewhere (I suspect that Gilbert was well aware of this fact!).

Thanks. Gilbert had been satirising the idea at least since The Happy Land, as noted in the footnotes. He obviously thought the idea of a civilian first lord was absurd. I don't think the fact that Smith wasn't the first one is relevant, only that Smith had no relevant experience whatsoever, as already stated. In any case, we link to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty article already, so I don't think a footnote will add anything new. -- User:Ssilvers

• Roles section: "Bill Bobstay, Boatswain's Mate (first mate)": Boatswain is a very confusing article which goes on about second and third mates but not first mates. I'd have thought that First Mate is a fairly grand position and Boatswain's Mate is a rather minor one, but I could be wrong.

Oops! Quite right. Fixed. -- User:Ssilvers

• Songs and musical analysis section, 2nd para: "The best-known songs from the opera include "I'm called Little Buttercup", a waltz tune introducing that Sullivan repeats in the entr'acte and in the Act II finale to imprint the melody on the mind of the audience..." Introducing what - the character?

Yes, thanks! Fixed. -- User:Ssilvers 20:15, 26 June 2009 [having trouble logging in]

• --GuillaumeTell 18:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Quite a few of the images needed to be relocated per WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS#Images. Please review the ellipses: they should be unspaced per WP:MOS#Ellipses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed spacing of all ellipses. Thanks for fixing the image placement. -- User:Ssilvers 23:42, 27 June 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 22:48, 27 June 2009 [4].

---

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

Nominator(s): Midnightdreary (talk), María (habla conmigo)

A collaborative effort for the past few months, recognizing Dr. Holmes's upcoming bicentennial in August. We'd love to hear what people think. Co-nominated by: María (habla conmigo) and Midnightdreary (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I commented on this article at the peer review, and since then it has been further improved. It is throughly researched and well organized, giving an excellent encyclopedic treatment of its subject. Well done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• May I suggest making the citation style consistent? Most are in the form "Small, 49–50" or "Weinstein, 29", but others are "Holmes, Oliver Wendell. The Autocrat at the Breakfast-Table. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1916: 7". I would support with that minor change. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  Typically, I only grant short form to sources which are used multiple times. Sources which are cited only once don't seem to need the same treatment because, ultimately, they take up more space rather than less. Any other thoughts on this? --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  Just what I was going to say; sources that are only used once, such as Autocrat, are listed in full in the "Notes" so as to not overwhelm the "References" section with less-used works. This is common practice, and I believe it's in keeping with the MOS. :) María (habla conmigo) 13:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  If that's the normal standard, then I have no objections and unconditionally support. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review: all images are verifiably in public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I peer-reviewed this article in mid-May, and I thought it excellent. The article has been improved since then, and all of my concerns have been addressed. I'm happy to support this fine addition to the encyclopedia. Finetooth (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please doublecheck spacing on ellipses per WP:MOS#Ellipses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 27 June 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 22:48, 27 June 2009 [5].

---

Symphonic poems (Liszt)

Nominator(s): Jonyungk (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because after peer review and many helpful suggestions in improving this article I believe it is of sufficient quality to be considered for featured article status. Jonyungk (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Questionable neutrality (1d) to me; sentences like the following need to be either cited or removed.
  • "Particularly striking in these works is Liszt's approach to musical form."
  • "The seeming veracity of this claim"
  • "Liszt's symphonic poems became highly controversial."
  • "Such was the roar of the controversy over these works"

Done. All these have been either cited or changed. Jonyungk (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• The lead and list of works lack citations (2c)

I'd been told in the past that the lead did not have to be cited unless a direct quote was used, as it was expected that the material summarized in the lead would be proved and cited in the article itself. Could you please clarify this? Jonyungk (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an FAC regular (yet), so I'm not honestly sure. Perhaps someone else can jump in? Stifle (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the lead does not have to be cited. Browsing around, I found Heian Palace or Superb Fairy-wren. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 11:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• A little low on images (3), although relevant and acceptable images might be hard to find for this.

• FYI, the number of images an article has is not a factor in what makes an FA. In fact, they're not even required for GAs. What matters is that the (however many) images are all correctly tagged and verifiable, which seems to be the case here. María (habla conmigo) 13:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a solid good article, but I think it has a bit more to go before FA status. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you suggest removing the article from consideration at this time? This is not a knee-jerk reaction to your comments but a realization that there may be a grain of truth in them. Jonyungk (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Not yet; other users (especially FAC regulars) may have some valuable comments that would save you the trouble next time. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support: Heavy copy-editing is needed throughout, I'm afraid. Some examples from the lead:

• The first 12 were composed in the decade 1848–58...: "composed between"?
• They helped establish...: "they" is ambiguous here since the prior sentence was only about one of the works. Be specific.
• establish the genre of orchestral programme music—music written to illustrate an extra-musical plan derived from a play, poem, painting or work of nature—and they inspired the symphonic poems of Bedrich Smetana, Richard Strauss and others. I would suggest breaking this sentence into two, so that the inspiration for Strauss, etc., would have more effect. The repetition of music, despite being separated by an em dash, is also unfortunate.
• Their composition...: again ambiguous; the prior sentences were about Liszt.
• with a continual process of creative experimentation that included many stages of composition, rehearsal and revision to reach a version where different parts of the musical form seemed balanced. I suggest making this clearer: "the poems underwent a continual process... and revision". I'm also not sure that the latter part of the sentence is necessary; perhaps just add on "in order to reach balance of musical form"?
• Liszt also provided written prefaces for nine of his symphonic poems. Remove "also".
• ...He was aware that the public often liked to attach "stories" to instrumental music, and decided to provide his own context before others invented something else. Redundant and perhaps TMI for the lead. How about combining the first two sentences of this paragraph into something more concise, like: "Aware that the public appreciated instrumental music with context, Liszt provided written prefaces..." etc.

And more. I can't comment as to the subject matter coverage, but these examples from the lead alone show that the article needs work before it can be promoted. I suggest finding a thorough copy-editor; you may also want to read Tony's excellent guide about satisfying criterion 1a of the FA requirements. Good luck! María (habla conmigo) 13:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, which have been taken to heart. All your suggestions for the lead section have been acted upon. Jonyungk (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: I did some minor copy-editing throughout for punctuation, typos, and basic sentence structure, so please make sure I did not misconstrue anything. I think the article has already greatly improved, although more tweaking wouldn't not hurt, as Brian notes below. Some of the quotes may need to be revisited to make sure they follow logical quotation rules ("symphonic poems", not "symphonic poems," if the punctuation is not part of the quote). That's as picky as picky gets for me, however. For now I'm happy to offer my support -- very interesting article, I enjoyed reading it! María (habla conmigo) 17:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. :-) Jonyungk (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I was not able to give this proper attention at peer review, though I made a few comments. My general opinion, after a more careful reading, is that the article is substantially OK, but still needs quite a bit of polishing and tweaking. Here are some comments, mainly on the first substantive section but with a couple of additional points:

• Article title: Why is the capitalisation in "Poems" justified?

  To me it really isn't—it was already this way when I started working on the article several months ago. Would moving it to "Symphonic poems (Liszt)" mess up any of the archived or linked pages such as this one, or could I make this move with no problems? Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  Done. Page moved to Symphonic poems (Liszt) Jonyungk (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Lead: Dvorak should be linked, though actually I find the name repetition (Strauss and Smetana) from the first paragraph slightly jars. Would the lead suffer if the final sentence ended at "writing symphonic poems"? I don't much like "such as" clauses if they are avoidable.

  Done. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Inventing the symphonic poem
  • First sentence could be better expressed. "Were" should be "are"; in addition I would suggest: "The direct ancestors for Liszt's symphonic poems are Beethoven's dramatic overtures for stage productions of Egmont and Coriolanus, and his third Leonore overture, intended for his opera Fidelio."

    Done. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • (Afterthought) By "the third Leonore overture", do you mean Leonore No. 3, which was actually, I believe, the second Leonore overture written? (There should be a reliable source for this, somewhere).

    Yes, I mean Leonote No. 3. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Need to clarify "Their" in "Their success..." But, why did the success of this type of composition cause them to be designated as overtures? I imagine it was more the proliferation of this type of composition that led to the need for a generic name.

    Yes, you're right—it was the proliferation of this type of work into the concert hall. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "Other, more dramatic..." The "more" sounds like a judgement and should be omitted. The second other can also go. Thus: "Other dramatic works by early- to mid-19th century composers followed..."

    Done. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Perhaps the list of examples is too numerous – the point could be made with half this number. And "such as..." again; I probably use it myself, but not twice in two lines. A colon after "followed" would do just as well.

    Done. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Who is Hugh Macdonald? And – I dunno – "points out" lacks a bit of authority, perhaps? If Macdonald is a recognised authority, then "According to..." is OK. I also think the phrase "albeit in one movement" is awkwardly placed. Why not simplify: "...shows his desire for the single-movement form to expand from...."?

    Done. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "itself" redundant?

    Removed. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "...a type of variation form in which one theme is transformed not into a related or subsidiary theme to the main one but into new, separate and independent themes." Quite hard to follow, and rather too much repetition. Best I can offer: "a type of variation in which one theme is transformed, not into a related or subsidiary theme but into something new, separate and independent."

    Done, but open to further suggestions on this point. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Penultimate paragraph: again, tendency to over-exemplify; five examples when three at most will do to secure the point.

    Cut the list down to three. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As suggested by other reviewers, the article probably needs some copyediting throughout. The prose isn't bad, but needs finishing and polishing. I will try and come back with some more suggestions, although I will be away from Wikipedia for much of the next week. Brianboulton (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do, and thank you. Jonyungk (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments - leaning Support Overall, this is a well-written and comprehensive article that has improved much since I last looked at it during a peer review. All paragraphs in the body (with the exception of the lead and one paragraph I'll get to in a moment) contain multiple references, and the use of images is good. I believe the article meets most of the FA criteria; I am leaning towards a support vote, but I do have a few comments first. In general, the article is well-written; I think that where it suffers is a tendency to be too academic at times for a general reader. * However, Liszt's view of the symphonic poem tended to be evocative rather than purely pictorial As this statement is in the lead, it should be easy for any reader to understand, but those without a musical background would, I think, be hard pressed to explain the difference between "evocative" and "pictorial" music.

• I have rephrased this sentence to explain better to non-musical readers what is meant here. Jonyungk (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

* Along with creating the symphonic poem itself, Liszt added two compositional practices to its inner workings. "adding" implies that the symphonic poem had existed without these features, but it sounds like they're all part of a package deal. Could you say something like: "Two technical features of the symphonic poem are..."

• I did not use this wording but changed the sentence accordingly. Jonyungk (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

* The last paragraph in the "Inventing..." section is only two sentences long; can you either expand it or tack it on to the previous para.?

• Done. Tacked it onto the previous paragraph. Jonyungk (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

* You mention Walker a number of times, and though I've read this article several times now, I'm sorry to say that at a few points I found myself wondering, "Walker? Who's Walker?" - A few reminders ("Critic Walker", "music historian Walker", or something) would be nice.

• Done. Jonyungk (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

* Wagner was more receptive; he grasped the idea of the unity of the arts that Liszt espoused - "grasped" sounds POV. Would it be accurate to say something like "agreed with", thus giving W's opinion without evaluating it?

• Done. Jonyungk (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

* The "Historical importance" section is a little block-y - chunks of quotation. Can that be broken up a little bit so that it doesn't read as "He said ... then he said ... then he said..."?

• Done. Jonyungk (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Nice job! It reads so much better now, I think. Ricardiana (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Jonyungk (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

* Can you add a source to the beginning of the "List of works" section? Or a general footnote - "Information taken from So-and-so's blah blah blah"?

• Done. Jonyungk (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a lot of criticisms, but I think they are fixable within a relatively short period of time, and they don't detract from the fact that this is a very well done and interesting article. Ricardiana (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Query Why is Grove listed under MacDonald or Walker in the notes but under Sadie in the bibliography? TwilligToves (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  Sadie is the editor of both editions of the New Grove; MacDonald and Walker are writers of individual entries in the New Grove. Jonyungk (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Can you put those entries in Chicago or a similar format to make that clearer? Ricardiana (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Jonyungk (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Leaning towards Support. Great work, though I have a few requests;

• Liszt held an idealized view of the symphonic poem as evocative rather than representational, and generally focused more on expressing poetic ideas rather than pictorial realism and refraining on the whole from narrative and literal description. Can you break this up. I got confused when I got to and refraining on the whole from narrative and literal description. Is this included as "generally focused more on" or "rather than". Apologies if I'm slow here.

Done. This section is hopefully easier to follow now. Jonyungk (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to see (S.95–107) cited.

Done. Jonyungk (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Liszt would then correct and make changes - whats the difference between 'correct' and 'make changes'? I'd reword as 'revise'.

Done. Jonyungk (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats it. Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That was fast, thanks, and I'm supporting now, having enjoyed reading this over the last few days. More bits and pieces:

• Can you flesh out Joachim Raff's image caption.

Done. Jonyungk (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Again with the caption for Die Hunnenschlacht, can you establish a connection between the painting and the Liszt's piece within the caption.

Done. Jonyungk (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'd cut down on direct quotes unless you are reporting an openion. Eg: the presence in the Weimar orchestra of individual virtuosi—the trombonist Moritz Nabich, the harpist Jeanne Pohl, and the violinists [Joseph] Joachim and Edmund Singer.... [Liszt] mixed daily with these musicians, and their discussions must have been filled with 'shop talk'. All until "must have been filled" is just matter of fact, easily transformed into prose.

I'll keep that in mind, though I didn't want to risk the possibility of a copyvio by sticking too closely to Walker's text without the safety net of quote marks. I've rewritten the passage accordingly. Jonyungk (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Got brave and rewrote all the long quotes in that section into the text. Jonyungk (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Jonyungk, do you have any audio samples you could add? I have a few mp3, but I'm not sure of which recording they came from so they would likely not pass FU. Ceoil (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll check the Commons to see whether there is anything there, but since I'm still in the stone age of CDs and don't use mp3s, I don't have anything offhand. Jonyungk (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

perhalps if I uploaded a file or two, you might recognise the source? I think extracts would add greatly to the page. Ceoil (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed but don't know how to upload or make available here. Jonyungk (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Now I know what you're saying. Unfortunately, I don't have speakers on my computer, so I wouldn't be able to hear the extracts to identify the source. Sorry. :-( Jonyungk (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No sweat. Ceoil (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for checking things out. Jonyungk (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Image comments:
  • File:Jjraffportrait.jpg without the author, can't use the given licensing tag.

All other images should meet criteria. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thannks for pointing this out. I've asked Jappalang to check this out. If he can't track anything down, I'll remove the image. Jonyungk (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I would advise removing it from this article. David is correct that the PD-Old license requires the likely fact of the author's passing beyond 70 years (the identity of the etcher and to a lesser degree, the year of creation, helps to determine this). Without such information, PD-Old fails verification.

I recommend replacing it with the photo this etching was based on. They are all available at http://www.raff.org/resource/gallery/01.htm. The photo in question would be raff_11a.jpg In fact, the photos are of the same series, taken by Mondel & Jacob of Germany.[6][7][8][9] raff_14.jpg is an etching of a photo in the series, which appears on p. 496 of Famous composers and their works (1891) This shows that the photo was taken in 1878. As Mondel & Jacob flourished from the mid-19th century (1840s to 1860s),[10] they are likely to have died more than 70 years. The photo is also available at Library of Congress (Popartmachine has a direct link to LoC's tiff here).

raff_1.jpg appears as one of the frontispieces of Dr. Hoch's Conservatorium zu Frankfurt am Main (1903). raff_2.jpg appears on p. 136 of The Great in Music (1900). raff_12.jpg appears between pp. 354–355 of The Standard Concert Guide (1912). Thus, there are 4 photos, public domain in US and source of origin, to choose from. Jappalang (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all this. I will replace the photo with one of the four you have identified. Jonyungk (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

←Are the images in a more or less stable state so I can re-review them? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Jonyungk (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The images as of 27 June should all meet criteria. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

  Done. Jonyungk (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments: I like the Classics, but I am not a music buff, and hence plead a near ignorance of the terms used in the studies of music. I had prepared a commentary based on the 01:31, 17 June 2009 version, but was kept getting held up by other things... (sorry). Much copyediting had been done since and many issues I had picked had been resolved, but I think there are some jargon that are still over the head for one as ignorant as me in musicology: "logic of symphonic thought in breadth and scope, if not in actual mechanics", "combine the elements of overture and symphony with descriptive elements to produce single-movement works that approach symphonic first movements in form and scale yet did not strictly obey Classical forms", are examples of what my head cannot seem to comprehend. I had to reach for the dictionary to understand "movements" as "a principal self-contained section of a large-scale work, such as a symphony".

I agree. Jonyungk (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've done some rewriting of the sections mentioned above so that they (hopefully) make more semse to non-musicians. I'm open to further suggestios along these lines. Jonyungk (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the jargon, I think I was thrown into the article without a context of the significance of Liszt's symphonic poems. Straight off, we are introduced to its creation. I think a brief exposition on the music scene before the first symphonic poem's creation would help. What music was predominant, what were the established conventions, which composers and critics were respected, and who was Liszt? I think that could establish at the start why the symphonic poems produced controversies in the circle (as well as giving the reader a bit of background). Jappalang (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you have identified the two principal flaws of this article, and for this I thank you. To my mind, they both need to be addressed to make the difference between this article being GA and FA. I am working on a solution to your second point in my sandbox but do not know whether this will be done before the current round of FAC discussions stops. But I think you're very right in that these points need to be addressed for this article to be passed. Jonyungk (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added a rough version of the type of introduction I think you mean and would appreciate input. Jonyungk (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments Lean to support (see last remaining queries)Support

• The nominator had previously asked me to take a look at this article, and I am only just getting to it now. I am doing some copyediting. I am making some other comments here, but if Jonyungk doesn't get to addressing them, I may have a go myself. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• the phrase "amending sonata form with compositional devices such as cyclic form, motifs and thematic transformation" is too technical, particularly in a lead.

I've changed the latter part of the sentence to read "... he combined elements of overture and symphony while also amending sonata form." Should this be simplified further or the entire sentence perhaps be removed altogether? Jonyungk (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That is better, and my view is that it should not be removed altogether.

• In the Background section there appears to be a grammatical error in the Bonds quote ""Even symphonies by well-known composers of the early 19th century as..." Should this not read ""Even symphonies by SUCH well-known composers of the early 19th century as..."?

I can insert it in brackets—not a problem. Jonyungk (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• What is a Kapellmeister?

Basically a combination of music director and composer in residence. Should this be changed to "music director" or simply linked? Jonyungk (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think change to music director and wikilink the words "music director" to the WP article "Kapellmeister".hamiltonstone ([[User

talk:Hamiltonstone|talk]]) 09:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Jonyungk (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• First para under "Composition process": My feeling is that there is a change in tense part way through, from (for example) "the symphonic poems do not follow a strict presentation", to (for example) "Recapitulations, where themes would normally be restated after development, were foreshortened". If I am missing an underlying principle behind the tense shift, then leave it be, but my intuitive reaction was that there should be a single tense used throughout.

Thanks for pointing this out. I have changed the paragraph so one tense is used throughout. Jonyungk (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• because "development" has common generic meanings in everyday use, I am not sure that it is wise to use the phrase "assume developmental proportions". First, if one applies everyday meanings of hte word development, the phrase actually makes no sense and second, the average reader would not know what the word means in a musical context.

Again, thanks. I have reworded both this sentence and the one preceding it so that it spells things out more clearly, but another set of eyes checking it probably would not hurt. Jonyungk (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Under "Raff's role", the phrase "his role in Weimar" is used at one point. I assume this means the role he played when Liszt was setttled at the place called Weimar (as mentioned in a previous section), but for some reason this expression confused me as a reader. I was thinking something like 'huh? The Weimar republic? Isn't it too early for that?' Yes, call me a fool, but perhaps just "his role" or, better I think, would be "the nature of their collaboration".

Done. Changed to "the nature of their collaboration." Jonyungk (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• While I appreciate it may be what a source has said, I found the implied put-down of Raff in the sentence "He also showed more than a little pride in this assumed role" to be bordering on POV. It has already been accepted that Raff was a gifted composer and had greater understanding of orchestration than Liszt. The issue is canvassed more fully in the next para and, the scholarship of Raabe notwithstanding, I have to say that my feeling was that it was Liszt who showed a lack of respect, rather than Raff showing "more than a little pride" in telling someone the orchestration was by him: it sounds like it was by him. Is there another way of putting this? Or perhaps omit the sentence "He also showed more than a little pride in this assumed role".

Done. The sentence is omitted. Jonyungk (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• "questioned the authenticity of Liszt's orchestral music". I think this is overstating it, but I concede it is typical of western artists, their critics and biographers to be obsessed with authorship in this way. It questions the authorship of the music, not its authenticity - however I may be in a minority view on this.

Done. Changed to "authorship." Jonyungk (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• On the same point: this section concludes that the sources say "regardless of the position with first drafts, or of how much assistance he may have received from Raff or Conradi at that point, every note of the final versions is by Liszt himself and represent his own intentions". This does not make sense. If Raff had any role at all, then it is simply not possible to say "every note of the final versions is by Liszt himself". I would suggest that either "every note of the final versions is by Liszt himself", and Raff's role was marginal (almost certainly not true) or "every note of the final versions represents Liszt's intentions" (more likely). I'm afraid my reaction to this passage was to question Raabe's impartiality.

Done. Went with the latter to be on the safe side.

• I would like other editors' views (and a response from Jonyungk) on the omission of Raabe as a source for this article.

Raabe's work and findings are mentioned by Searle and Walker, both of whom are cited. I'm not against citing Raabe as a source—my only question is citing his book as a source when it was not used directly. Other views? Jonyungk (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, but my point was slightly different. The FAC criteria include that the article "is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic". My concern is whether a thorough article on Liszt's symphonic poems would require Wikipedia editor(s) to have consulted Raabe, if he is a major scholar on these works. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. Since Raabe's findings have been reported by Walker and Searle, including in the New Grove by both men, the general gist is readily available in English. Whether Raabe's work has been translated fromm German to English so as to examine it in detail is another matter—I honestly don't know if Raabe has been translated. Jonyungk (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• The concluding sections are beautifully crafted.

Thank you. Jonyungk (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• I look forward to resolving the above points and being able to support promotion of this article to FA. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Editor Jonyungk, you don't have to do everything I suggest if you don't agree - particularly as you have access to the sources and I do not. :-) And here's a last point to which my comment may apply. I just noticed the caption to the image of Raff: it is described as "Joachim Raff, who made exaggerated claims about his role in Liszt's compositional process". If the reliable sources are confident that those claims are exaggerated, and no reliable source disagrees, then that is acceptable. If any source disagrees, or if the sources do not actually use such strong language, then I would soften the tone of the caption. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I may seem a little too willing to make changes, but the points you bring up are good ones and I have an overriding wish to make this as user-friendly an article as possible, despite all the jargon that has cropped up in it.

As for the caption, both Walker and Searle state that Raff's role was exaggerated, but Walker especially can be biased, despite his excellent research; in fact, I have avoided using Eleanor Perényi's biography entirely about Raff becuase it is so rabidly pro-Lisztian. But your point is a good one. Since the article itself does not use the word "exaggerated," it may not make semse to use it in the caption either. To play it safe, I removed the word "exaggerated" from the caption. Even without that word, the caption "Joachim Raff, who made claims about his role in Liszt's compositional process" still seems to get the point across. Jonyungk (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have one further suggestion. It was an issue I didn't raise the first time through, but on re-reading, I would like to address it. The section "reception" beings "Liszt foresaw the potential controversy over these works in the context of the War of the Romantics,..." I think a couple of sentences more here, to give context, are needed, and I have implemented my proposed suggestion (in the article), but because the War of the Romantics article lacks inline cites, i don't know what you do about references:

• "Liszt was preparing his symphonic poems during a period of great debate amongst the musicians of central Europe and Germany, known as the War of the Romantics. All admired Beethoven's work, but a conservative group, including Brahms and members of the Leipzig Conservatoire, saw his work as an unsurpassable peak. Wagner and the New German School (including Liszt), in contrast saw Beethoven's innovations as merely a new beginning in music. In this climate, Liszt foresaw the potential controversy that his symphonic poems would elicit, writing..." hamiltonstone (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• I like what you've done and you're right, the article needs context at that point, but we're also opening a can of worms here. The trick is to say something without letting the worms get too far out of the can. Walker talks quite a bit about the War of the Romantics and there may be something usable in the New Grove. Let me see what I can come with as to tweaking and attribution. Jonyungk (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. Im done here and have switched to support, and am confident any tweaking needed for that new intro I've done will be OK. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Much of the prose is beautiful, but could do with an independent run-through for polishing.
• Redundant "also" in first para.

Done. Jonyungk (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• "To capture these dramatic and evocative qualities while achieving the scale of an opening movement, he combined elements of overture and symphony while also amending sonata form." I wondered whether "... and symphony in a modified sonata design" would be better, linguistically and conceptually. I hesitated at the use of the word "amend", which is repeated in the section "Inventing the symphonic poem".

Done. Jonyungk (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• And Walker's distinguishing of "modify" and "develop" is unexplained, and probably wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.

I tried explaining it in the following paragraph.

There was a lot of puff around in the 1850s about sonata form, and too much has been made of its casting in terms of binary distinctions since. There's a problematic "Liszt amended sonata form by adding two compositional practices [i.e., cyclic form and thematic transformation]" (my italics). Yet it is openly admitted 10 seconds later that neither was new, and both were children of the previous classical period. I'm concerned at the claim that "Liszt perfected the creation of entire formal structures through the use of these two concepts"—I think Beethoven, Schubert and Mozart would have scoffed at that.

The point is that they did not use thematic transformatio or cyclic form as a regular practice—they were exceptions rather than the rule. With Liszt they became a regular practice. On a slightly related note, Walker mentions that, "[o]n the general question of cuts, it is true to say that wherever Liszt recommends them he tended to lose conventional development and preserve metamorphosis" (Walker, Weimar, 323 footnote 37).

You might consider toning down these more cut-and-dried claims from the main text and the rather long quotation from Walker Vol. 2, and modifying the last sentence ... "the creation of significantly longer formal structures ..."; isn't it the extension of the duration of sonata form that he managed? Beethoven and Mozart, of course, were doing the same in their own way (Mozart, as a simple example, by mode mixture, especially of the home key in the exposition—see K503i). Can Liszt's contributions be seen as part of gradual and inevitable trends rather than as the ownership of discontinuities? Tony (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's how Walker follows the section quoted:

... Liszt's "reply" to the classical symphony, as we have seen, was the symphonic poem, a form he invented. Briefly, his work showed three departures:

1. He invented the single-movement "cyclic" structure which rolled the separate movements of the sonata into one. In this, Liszt was only carrying on a procedure established by Beethoven, in whose works—the Fifth Symphony, for example—certain movements are not only linked but actually reflect one another's context.

2. He perfected the "transformation of themes" technique, in which the contrasting ideas of a work are developed from a single musical idea.

3. He believed that the language of music could be fertilized by the other arts, poetry and painting in particular. He popularized the concept of "programme music," and so began a controversy that still goes on today.

Could some of this be included either instead of or in addition to what is currently in the article to better explain Liszt's intentions and practices? Jonyungk (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: You have dealt with some earlier points I raised, and the article has improved since then due to your responses to other reviewers' comments. There is one sentence that's bothering me: "In the 1830s, concert halls were few, and opera houses were mainly for the orchestra" What does this mean - "opera houses were mainly for the orchestra"? Weren't they mainly for the productions of operas? Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but can you clarify? Brianboulton (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What about this: "In the 1830s, concert halls were few, and orchestras served mainly in the production of operas—symphonic works were considered far lower in importance"? Jonyungk (talk) 05:05, 28 June 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 22:48, 27 June 2009 [11].

---

Wind

Nominator(s): Thegreatdr (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...I have spent months upgrading it from Start/C class, and I think that this article is very important to wikipedia, since it is one you'd find in any encyclopedia. It has gone through a peer review process, but there wasn't much feedback, unfortunately. Also, it has taken me many months to get over the shock of my last couple FAC processes, and finally feel emotionally ready for another one. Or so I think. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Quick-skim driveby comments without reading the whole thing

Most of those images are forced way too large (and most – other than the maps and diagrams – don't show any particular detail so don't need to be forced at all)

The Plotting on surface weather maps section needs globalising; neither it, nor its "parent" article at Station model, mention any country other than the US, and every source is talking about US usage. – iridescent 22:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And so it begins. Station model does talk about Great Britain, oddly enough. Despite that, I'll take your suggestion and shrink the image size to 200 px, which will hopefully address that concern. Think you can point me to a more global reference for the plotting of wind onto weather maps? Last I checked, the US had a similar format to other countries (including Japan and Great Britain). I'd be very appreciative of whatever further help you can provide. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding station model, honestly, I don't know (although some of The Hurricane Crowd will no doubt be along soon, who will presumably know; if it's used globally, there's no need to single out the US ("In the United States, the change to the modern convention of flags…"); if the US was atypical until this change (or became atypical because of it), the circumstances ought to be spelled out. Regarding the images, I can't see a need for forced image widths at all, other than on the lead image and the maps/charts, but wait & see what others say.

And note that this isn't an oppose, just a comment… – iridescent 22:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand, and appreciate your feedback. I removed the line regarding the United States change in practices regarding the station model. The last time I went through FAC for the List of wettest tropical cyclones in the United States, there was a comment that all the images needed to be the same size throughout the article. That's why I've done the same through this article. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Does the "Bible" section need to be in the article at all? It just seems dubious to single out one holy book and make an entire section that consists of quotes where it mentions wind. Artichoker^[talk] 00:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  I think that subsection could be merged in Ancient religions, and as it's also in the History section, 'Events where its influence changed history' could be changed to something like 'Influence on historical events', per the MOS. Cenarium (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  The bible section has been removed and the historical events section has been reworded and merged per your suggestions. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment First, congratulations for having substantially worked on this important article. I'll comment mainly on the subject of the section 'Outgasing from objects in space': I think the section name is a little too obscure for most readers, would 'wind in space/outer space' be an accurate description, or could it be expanded to that subject ? Further, outgassing (also, outgassing is the most frequent spelling according to google) is not described in that section, I think at least a link to outgassing should be given (if it remains). Winds in space, in particular on other planets, may deserve a more comprehensive description, in this section, as readers may wonder if there are winds on other planets, and if they are formed and behave in the same or similar way (when a planet has a sufficient atmosphere, they are created by differences of density between regions, I guess). A more consequent introduction in that section and a few links, with some references, should suffice (not going so far as evoking things like "intergalactic winds", of course ;). It's also not clear in the section 'planetary' what are hydrodynamic winds, is it those ? To give a few relevant links, extraterrestrial winds are mentioned in Extraterrestrial atmospheres, for planets particularly in Neptune, and I also see that HD 189733 b is linked in weather. On another note, maybe the external links section should link to Commons:Wind, I let you decide how you want it, {{commons}}, {{commons-inline}} or else. I'm sensible to the abuse of sister links, but commons is generally worth it, and it has some good media on Wind, decently presented. Cenarium (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I've attempted to address your concerns by simplifying the title and adding a new section concerning winds on other planets within our solar system. I checked out that extra-solar system planet you mentioned, and its article mentions nothing about wind, so I do not see any information which would be relevant for this article. Hydrodynamic winds are actually described in the sentence where the term is used. Do you think the wording could be clarified better? If so, how? Thegreatdr (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't know that subject, but imo, the way hydrodynamic winds are introduced may be ambiguous: two new types of wind are introduced in that section, solar and planetary, and it's not clear whether hydrodynamic winds are simply normal winds (those discussed since the beginning of the article) with the distinctive effect to move up hydrogen, so which defines them; or a new kind of wind, with that particular effect. That exoplanet HD_189733_b is noted in weather, as having the strongest planetary winds discovered, and they are mentioned in this section, but that may not be worth mentioning, may be too specific. The new section on wind on other planets looks good, informative.
      • Thanks for the comments. The hydrodynamic wind in the upper portion of the atmosphere, from what I understand, ultimately allows for the escape of gases into space, which is the planetary wind. Therefore, the first process aids and abets the second. The winds mentioned on the extrasolar planet rely on assumptions, and haven't been measured like those on the solar system planets have via probes, so it would probably be best to leave it out, for now. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm fine with that. Could an article be potentially made on planetary winds, is it worth a redlink ? Cenarium (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Done, although it is a redirect to atmospheric escape, since they are the same thing. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    • On the comprehensiveness: the article doesn't discuss specific examples of winds, I added List of local winds in the see also section (as well as wind wave and the 'four winds'), and (although it needs some work), it contains some particular winds with relatively developed articles like Santa Ana winds, Shamal (wind), Tramontane, Mistral (wind), and Monsoon. I believe that the subject of particular winds is important, some have a strong significance (and enduring influence on the civilization, sometimes on a large scale), and deserve to be discussed in the article, with a few mentioned, maybe in a section.
      • Addressed this concern. Many local winds are now mentioned within the mountain effects and desert dust migration sections, with a new paragraph concerning upslope and downslope winds now existing within the mountain effects section. Lines concerning the monsoon now exist within the newly-renamed tropics section within the global climatology section. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Good enough, thanks. Cenarium (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I wonder if the subject of the influence of the wind on civilizations, already well-documented, couldn't be expanded further, or present a larger overview. The introduction of local winds could participate, as they influenced the culture of some societies, and this is documented in several of those articles. This influence is also visible in that wind is frequently present in 'popular' culture and fiction, which could warrant a rapid overview (although that may be better served in a separate article, but I heard it's a sensitive subject at AFD and not only, so just an idea).
      • Which articles mention its influence on culture? I haven't run across this aspect before. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
        • The influence of wind(s) on culture, etc, is disseminated over winds articles, like Viento de Levante, Nor'west arch,Barguzin wind,Witch of November,Mistral (wind),Khamsin, ,Santa Ana winds and Tramontane, and a few more generalist like Winds in the Age of Sail and Winds of Provence. I recognize this is a more disparate subject, and finding the proper balance could be difficult. I'll think about it a little more, on how this could be introduced. Cenarium (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I also have concerns around the general organization and dynamics of sections, I'll try to comment on this later. A suggestion: the effect of the wind on fire could be mentioned in the section Related damage, with Wildfires. There were some linking incoherences, most have been addressed. References 43 and 10 are not formatted (search for "[ht" in the main body). I adjusted and added some internal links in the references, but there doesn't seem to be any common way to link in the footnoted references, so I chose to link the first instance of relevant links among footnotes, and only. Do you concur with that ? Cenarium (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I added a paragraph on wind on wildfires per your suggestion. As for wikilinks within the refs, only wikilinking the first instance is probably best...it would limit the size of the overall page. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
        • The third section, Plotting on surface weather maps, looks a little specialized, and isn't used in the latter sections, does it really deserve a section ? Or could it be merged into another section perhaps for example in Scales, so as to form a 'representation and scales'/'scales and representation' section. Cenarium (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Dealt with. I merged to the two sections into one now called "meteorological use". Is this too broad of a title? Thegreatdr (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
            • I'll refer to your judgment for those final calls. The article has become much more comprehensive, and I think it satisfies the criteria I'm in measure of judging. So, support. Cenarium (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I have had a readthrough of this article - evreything seems to make sense and i think it meets the critera. Jason Rees (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• A bit long at 75KB perhaps? Stifle (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• The article contains 5,365 words of prose, which is safely below the 10,000-word recommended limited. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've noticed in other FACs (such as tropical cyclone) that the wikipedia cite web reference requirement can take up a significant amount of space in articles. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Check dablinks... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The issue has been resolved. This also helped out with finding duplicate occurrences of wikilinks within the article. Another pass was made through the article to remove extra wikilinks. The singular dead link has also been resolved. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• File:Exeter-20may44.jpg has an incorrect license tag. Its description says crown copyright, but it is tagged GFDL. Rettetast (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Removed the GFDL tag, per your comment. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think there's a comprehensiveness problem around the effect of wind on animals. The existing section Effect on flying animals has only one sentence describing the effect of wind on animals, followed by two sentences describing the effect of animals on weather radar. The cited reference is a university press release, which doesn't inspire confidence that a broad view of the subject is being taken. The opening phrase "Insects, also known as arthropods..." is inaccurate. The phrase "birds follow their own course" is misleading; a quick Google search tells me that migratory birds are known to exploit prevailing winds, and on a smaller scale, I'm sure local wind patterns strongly affect gliding flight.

  Then there's the effect of wind on non-flying animals. Wind speed, in the form of windchill, is important to large, warm-blooded animals in cold environments. I'm thinking of penguins huddling against the wind. Wind also affects whether or not a predator detects an odor plume from its prey.

  Browsing through textbooks and review articles in biology would probably turn up a lot more material. WikiProject Ecology could probably help with this area. Melchoir (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I fixed the problems you noted with insects and birds, and have included its impact on other animals, such as sheep and cattle, as well as foraging, hunting, and defensive strategies. The penguin behavior you noted is more about cold than wind, but luckily I found a source which also mentions wind. Let me know if that is enough information on the topic...I'm worried about the article becoming too large, as it has gained about 15 kb since its nomination for FAC. Thank you for your input. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Wow, nice turnaround! I think that's probably enough of a sampling on animals. If significantly more material were added to the animal subsection, it could be exported into a sub-article (Ecology of wind, perhaps?), and the comprehensiveness of sub-articles shouldn't block a FAC. I understand that article size is a concern, but while you're at it, perhaps you could also flesh out the effects on plants? There's already wind dispersal but that feels lonely without wind pollination (anemophily). Also perhaps some mention of adverse effects (exposure tree line, windthrow). Melchoir (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Your new issues have been tackled, and I also added a line concerning pruning of plants near the shore. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Great! Melchoir (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://library.thinkquest.org/26634/desert/formation.htm (ThinkQuest is "Over 7,000 websites created by students around the world who have participated in a ThinkQuest Competition.")
  • http://www.pantheon.org/
  • http://www.theoi.com/
  • http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1134.html
  • http://web.archive.org/web/20071014140647/http://www.cdli.ca/CITE/v_navigations.htm
  • http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-hot-air-balloon.htm
  • http://www.infovisual.info/05/093_en.html
  • http://inventors.about.com/od/astartinventions/ss/airship_9.htm
  • http://www.scientificblogging.com/news/scientists_track_migration_of_asian_dust_and_pollution
  • http://northernwoodlands.org/articles/article/why_is_the_treeline_at_a_higher_elevation_in_the_tetons_than_in_the_white_m
  • http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/cold_penguins.htm
  • http://earthsci.org/fossils/space/comets/comet.html#coma
  • http://www.solarviews.com/eng/vgrsat.htm
• Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. I noted UCAR, FAA, but there may be others.
• Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper. Magazine/journal titles likewise should be italicised.
• When using a book that's reproduced on Google books, please format it like a book, with {{cite book}}. I noticed a few of them (espcially "Ultimate Guide to Elk Hunting") were lacking authors, etc. Need page numbers also.
• Current ref 124 (de Souza Costa..) is a journal article and should be formatted as such, giving the journal title, etc.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Encyclopedia Mythica (pantheon.org) is an award-winning internet encyclopedia, which sounds like a reliable source to me. Theoi.com quotes the original classical texts for its website. The scientific blogging source is an actual news story, and news stories have been used in past articles as reliable sources (it's not a blog entry). Northern woodlands.org is a site of an educational organization, which should make it a reliable source. Earthsci.org is sponsored by the Geological society of Australia. Solarviews.com is sponsored by NASA. The other websites can seem more flaky though, even if a couple of them are considered, or are hoping to become, academic websites and one is a dictionary (which I would have thought would be fine). I'll see if I can find suitable replacements for those 5. Spelled out the acronyms and italicized the newspaper/journal titles, per your request. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
    • We need a bit better than "sounds like a reliable source to me" Are you finding those awards for Mythica from their own site or from others? Okay, so theoi quotes the originals, what makes their interpretation correct? We need to know who is behind them. If the scientificblogging source is a newssource, I'd prefer to see it from a news organization? Alternatively, we can show that the news information on the scientificblooging site is considered reliable by other news organizations. On the educational organization, we need to know what makes them reliable. On the two sponsored by sites, sponsoring doesn't make them reliable. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.--Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
      • You know what? This is nuts. There is no way I'm going to be able to determine all you're asking of me concerning these websites as sources. I would think it would be common sense if NASA, etcetera, were sponsoring a web site that they would consider them reliable. But you're right. This is wikipedia, and common sense rarely matters here. I've spent 10+ hours editing the article per the previous FAC comments, and this is getting tiring. I can't even prove to you that journal articles are as reliable are you're asking of me for those other websites. In fact, I know the opposite has been true in the past, particularly within scientific journals. But you know what? That doesn't matter to wikipedia. Why comment on the prose, when it's the minutia of the references that is clearly more important? I will try to replace all of those references, per your command, my leige. And I'm sorry about this outburst, but I'm doing all this editing, and only a couple of the previous comments up this thread have been followed up upon from those that made them, so I don't even know if the edits I'm making are actually improving the article. I'm just frustrated. I'm sorry I'm taking this out on you. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
        • • I know its frustrating, but yes, it's Wikipedia. We need to fulfill WP:RS and WP:SPS, which are the basics for any wikipedia article. The journal articles get covered because they are published by reliable scientific publishers, thus they fulfil WP:RS. The same goes for newspapers by mainstream newspapers, etc. I do my own share of FACs, so I can understand that it's frustrating. On the gods/etc. I'll try to find time this afternoon to source the information to some printed books I own, which will solve those problems. Where I don't have information is on the scientific stuff, so I can't help you there. --Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Thank you for your help and understanding, especially if you own printed media which can be used as references concerning ancient mythology. I'll replace the science information references; maybe I own some books which can be used instead. I replaced the first one from your list already. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
              • Gods have been sourced to a printed work published by Facts on File. --Ealdgyth - Talk 15:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
                • All the other refs have been replaced. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
                  • I"m still waiting on the other unstruck issues with the refs to be addressed. (As a side note, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I haven't bothered with unstriking and then restriking my comments above, but you might want to remember that in the future.) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
                    • The other concerns should now be addressed. All the acronyms should be gone from the references (unless I missed one and didn't realize it), the references for de Souza and the Elk hunting book have been fixed (the author was there but the reference coding was slightly off). Where the author info and publisher info are the same, I've made the publisher the author. A number of cite webs were converted into cite books, which allowed page number locations to be clearer within the refs. This does differ from the cite journal format, however, If you notice any others, please comment further. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I fixed that problem a few days ago, according to that link. When I hit dablinks in the toolbox a minute ago, all I get is a blank page. Which ones do you see still remaining in the article? The dablink link was incorrect. Fixed it, along with the two remaining disambiguation links. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a summary of what's happenned with this FAC so far this past week. I have expanded the article by 25-30%, and appear to have fulfilled several editors requirements, both in regards to expanding its content and the references used. I've removed the disambiguation wikilinks (twice) and the one red/dead reference link. The one issue that remains is whether or not wind's effect on civilization needs a fuller treatment within this article. Any opinions? Is there anything else that needs to be done? So far, there is one support vote (made prior to most of the significant content changes), no opposes, and a bunch of comments/requests, which have been apparently been fulfilled. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think it now says all that needs to be said, although it could maybe warrant a mention of early windmills in the "Power" subsection; I appreciate that it's all covered at Wind power, but at present the section as written gives the impression that wind power is a new technology and used only for electricity generation, which obviously isn't the case. – iridescent 15:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. A paragraph concerning the history of windmills was added to the article, per your request. Also, per Cenarium's request, a couple lines concerning the Khamsin wind's influence on a couple historical events have been added. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Great article on the whole. Major kudos to the nominator for taking on such an extensive and important project. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support great article. igordebraga ≠ 16:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Citations are inconsistent: some are first name last name; others are last name, first name. I also suspect the {{main}} template is misapplied several times. The main template is used when this article is a summary of the other aticle. When that is not the case, another template should be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe I have made the appropriate fixes. Thank you for the clarification on the see also/main template issue. Let me know what you think. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support- Looks good. --Anhamirak 01:43, 28 June 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 22:48, 27 June 2009 [12].

---

Gregorian mission

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel it meets the FA criteria. And it's not a bishop or a horse! As is usual, Malleus has done his usual wonderful job of massaging my prose. Any errors still remaining are mine. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport all my issues have been resolved.NancyHeise ^talk 00:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• The section entitled "Motivations" I think is incomplete. It mentions Gregory's possible motivations and is referenced to only one source. I checked Eamon Duffy's Saints and Sinners which devotes several pages to discuss the Gregorian missions. On pages 70-71 (paperback edition[13]) it says of his motivations: "In all probability we must attribute the English mission simply to Gregory's desire for 'an increase of the faithful'. He sought the spread of Catholic Christianity to the barbarian kingdoms of Britain as he had seen it spread in his own lifetime amon the barbarians of Spain and Gaul, and as he hoped to see it spread among the Lombards. Whatever Gregory's motives, however, the Roman mission to England was to have an impact far beyond the bounds of Britain."
• These sentences in the article section "Motivations"

  "Gregory believed that the end of the world was imminent, and that he was destined to be a major part of God's plan for the apocalypse. His belief was rooted in the idea that the world would go through six ages, and that he was living at the end of the sixth age, a notion that may have played its part in Gregory's decision to dispatch the mission. Only the conversion of more of the peoples of the world to Christianity could bring about the end of the world, and thus it was important to support missionary efforts.'"

  I have a problem with these sentences, they are very specific about Gregory's beliefs but I can not find the bolded one in the referenced source here [14]. I think that undue weight is given to this and that it should be reworded to more accurately reflect the source.

It's further down on that page, the paragraph starting:

Gregory clearly had a continuous and ongoing commitment to the spread of Cahtolic Christianity through his role as the senior bishop of all Christendom, and more particularly of the West. He saw himself as the key agent on early through whom God's plan for mankind might be made manifest beofre the sixth age of the earth should end - an he believe that ending to be iminent. His interst in conversion was, therefore, ideologically rooted.

In this context, the six ages theory means the end of the world and the coming of Christ once more. I myself don't see the problem with the paraphrase here. It's an inference, but it's certainly there to be read in what Higham's saying. If that last sentence is a bother, I'm not sure how else to condense what Higham's saying, honestly. The preceding sentences won't make much sense without drawing the conclusion, at least not to most folks. I can trim it if others feel that it's not a valid conclusion, but I think removing it will make Higham's thoughts less clear. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to oppose your FAC over this, I just think it would be better if it were more concise, perhaps a wikilink to Six ages of the world could help?NancyHeise ^talk 02:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh. It's Six ages of the world, and I'll try to fit it in, somehow. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Higham' explanation for Gregory's motivations differ from Eamon Duffy's. If two different authors make specific rationalizations about a pope's intentions, I think any mention of these in the article should mention the specific author making such comment and that the article should include both viewpoints to meet WP:NPOV.

Higham's ideas of Gregory's motivations differ from Markus' also. I thought I'd made it explicit that Markus (and most other historians) think that increasing the faithful was one motivation, but I can see it didn't get through. I'll mine Markus for that, since he's the most recent scholarly biographer of Gregory. Let me work on that in the morning, as facing Markus' prose is not something I wanna do right before bed. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what I did was move the previous first paragraph of "Practical consideration" into the "motivations" where it really should have been to begin with. I also explicitly drew out that the desire to increase Christian numbers was part of it. (Drew on Hindley for that, Markus never says "of course they wanted to increase the number of Christians... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, I think it is better but it still does not make the point that Duffy makes in that Gregory's motivation was for an 'increase in the faithful'. To say that he did it because he thought the world would not end unless he did is wrong. This sentence: "Only the conversion of more of the peoples of the world to Christianity could bring about the end of the world, and thus it was important to support missionary efforts." is unreferenced and Higham does not say this neither does Duffy. I think that sentence could easily be tossed and something inserted to help make Duffy's point which reflects the understanding of most Catholics as to his motivations. I think a lot of Readers will think the article lacks all points of view if Duffy's POV is omitted. Can't you just use Duffy as a source as well and insert a line to reflect his comments on Gregory's motivation? See also the second paragraph on page 52 of Donald Logan's A history of the church in the Middle Ages [15]. He makes the point that the motivation was "it has come to our ears by the mercy of God the English race earnestly desire to be converted to Christianity". NancyHeise ^talk 12:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, I don't find Duffy's work specialized enough for this topic. I've consulted more specialized works for this article, ones that aren't covering a whole 2000 years of church history, but instead cover the time frame here. Markus' biography of Gregory is one of the most recent, Higham's work on the conversion is quite good. There is also Yorke and Mayr-Harting who wrote specifically on the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons. I'll find it somewhere, but I myself DO see the connection in Higham's work and what the sentence says. Let me wake up and find something specific. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the last paragraph of Motivations now starts: "Although one of Gregory's main motivations was to increase the number of Christians,[27] more practical matters, such as the recruitment of new provinces acknowledging the primacy of the papacy and the gaining of new Christians looking to Rome for leadership were probably involved." which hopefully addresses your concerns. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I read your adjustments to this section. Ealdgyth, I am always happy with your articles and I think this one meets FA too and intend to support it but I can not do that yet because this section on "Motivation" seems to be so POV to me. I have read Higham, Duffy and Logan and, although Higham speculates on Gregory's motivations, this is actually one scholar's speculation that is not mirrored by other scholars. The article should state this, not make it seem as if Higham's speculation is fact. Duffy actually states something completely different from Higham regarding motivation and even frames this the same way as Higham, as scholarly speculation. What they are saying is that no one really knows for sure what Gregory's motivations were but they think it may have had something to do with 1)"an increase of the faithful" 2)a response to the request for conversion by English royalty 3)Higham's Six Ages theory 4)extension of papal authority (this is in the article already but is unreferenced, is this from Higham? It needs ref). NancyHeise ^talk 16:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I"ve added a "Higham theorizes ... " in front of the six ages theory stuff. The bit about papal authority is specifically cited from Hindley (it's cited in the following sentence and the citation covers the sentence before it also. It could also be cited to Stenton, and probably others (I havent' checked for it specifically in Yorke or Mayr-Harting. It's coverage in Hindely, who is writing a generalized history of the Anglo-Saxons makes it more than a one-person theory. Hindley's basically writing a college level textbook on Anglo-Saxon history) All four of your motivations are covered in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Duffy is cited many more times on Googlescholar than Higham, he is a Yale University Press. His theory of Gregory's motivations should be included in that paragraph to offset the sentences referenced to Higham to show scholarly disagreement. Also, is this sentence referenced: "Only the conversion of more of the peoples of the world to Christianity could bring about the end of the world, and thus it was important to support missionary efforts." My problem with this section centers on that sentence which I can not find in Higham and which I think should be tossed out. NancyHeise ^talk 20:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to toss the sentence, (although I disagree with you that it's not covered by the Higham citation, but that's probably because I've got more background on the things that Higham is assuming the reader knows) but I think the other point is covered sufficiently. I've thrown in another cite to cover the fact that more than one historian feels the obvious motive of increasing Christians was behind the mission. (This one is to Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England) Duffy's point is IN the article, and it's common so it doesn't need attribution by name to Duffy, since most scholars writing on it assume it's covered, as 'increasing the number of the faithful" is pretty much the glaringly obvious reason to send out missionaries to convert folks. If i attribute it to Duffy, I'm going to have to attribute it to all the OTHER historians, it's so common. By not attributing it by name, I'm making it clear that it's a motivation commonly held by historians. As for using Duffy as a citation, Google scholar isn't perfect, and we shouldn't base our sourcing on how many hits on that someone has, but rather on the scope of their work and whether it is relevant to the subject. The subject here is the specific mission to the Anglo-Saxons, so I'd think Anglo-Saxon scholars would be more pertinent and better sources to cite than Duffy, who is a scholar of the late middle ages (Here is a search on his works for Google Scholar, if I was writing on late medieval church history into the Dissolution, I'd quote him before I'd quote Higham's words, as in that case, Higham would be operating outside his specialty. Likewise, here on this subject, Duffy's outside his specialty.) If you decide to oppose because I won't cite a late medieval history specialist over an Anglo-Saxon historian, we'll just have to agree to disagree here. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Furhter note, the offending sentence is gone. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your sources. I am just stating that Duffy does cover this subject in some detail and has opinions that differ from the sources used. You have presented his POV using another source and I am fine with that. I am also happy that you tossed the sentence that struck me as undue. I have just tweaked the last paragraph in "Motivations" to eliminate weasel words like "probably" and mention the fact that some scholars believe his motivations were for one reason, others for another. Please see the changes and let me know if you are OK with my edit. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 23:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your edit, but it's kinda a "duh" to say that Gregory's motivation for sending the mission was to increase the number of Christians. I mean, the purpose of the mission was to convert folks, so it is kinda obvious that Gregory was motivated to increase the number of Christians. Surely, he wouldn't have sent the mission hoping they wouldn't succeed in converting the pagans to Christianity? But I'm not going to change your wording, I just kinda feel it's implicit in the whole "missionary endeavour" thing that one purpose was to increase the number of CHristians in the world. It's a "fact" kinda thing, not something subject to scholarly debate. What they DO debate is what other motivations Gregory might have had. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, you can't have a "Motivations" section and not state what scholars actually say, and they actually say that his "motivation" was to increase the number of Christians. I don't think it is "duh" at all but essential to that section. The first sentence in the section says "Some historians take the view that Gregory initiated the mission, although exactly why remains unclear." The last paragraph now states that scholars have theories as to why instead of stating those theories as facts because "exactly why remains unclear". The last paragraph reflects the truth revealed in the first sentence otherwise one would have proven the other wrong and it would have made no sense. If you are fine with this edit, I am now ready to support. I am sorry to have had so much to say about this, I was just trying to give you a thorough FAC review, it was an act of LOVE from me to you! : ) NancyHeise ^talk 00:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) IT's fine Nancy. (grins). Thanks for the review, I'm always glad to have a thorough one. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Section entitled "Composition and arrival" could be expanded with information from the Saints and Sinners book (Yale University Press) pages 69-70 "Just why Gregory should have decided to evangelise England we do not know. The earliest biography, written in England a century after his death, tells how, while still a deacon, he saw handsome, fair-haired Anglo-Saxon boys in Rome. When told they were Angles, he replied, 'They are angels of God,' and immmediately formed a desire to convert the nation from which they had come. The story is quite plausible in itself, and Gregory's interest in this people 'worshipping stocks and stones...at the edge of the world' may well have been aroused by seeing English slaves in the Roman market. Certainly by 595 he was instructing the Rector of the papal patrimony in Gaul to buy up seventeen or eighteen year-old English slave-boys, to be trained as monks in the Roman monasteries. He may already have been looking for interpreters for a mission to England. One year later he despatched his mission, a party of Roman monks led by Augustine, prefect of Gregory's own monastery of St. Andrew"

Nancy, that information is already in the article, under motivations, the first paragraph. And most historians are divided on whether the story is true or not. (It first appears in the Life of Gregory written over a hundred years after the fact, so it may be a fable.) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes but Duffy states "Certainly by 595 he was instructing the Rector of the papal patrimony in Gaul to buy up seventeen or eighteen year-old English slave-boys, to be trained as monks in the Roman monasteries. He may already have been looking for interpreters for a mission to England. One year later he despatched his mission" and this information is not in that section discussing "Composition and arrival". Duffy is suggesting that Gregory used these purchased English slave boys that were trained as monks as interpreters for that mission. NancyHeise ^talk 02:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

But those boys were not used as interpreters. They got their interpreters from the Frankish kingdoms, as is known from letters Gregory wrote, soliciting interpreters from the Frankish kings. If he had trained slaves as interpreters, he wouldn't have asked for Frankish ones while the missionaries were traveling to Kent. Duffy's off base there. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am certainly not an expert on this subject, I am just relating to you what Duffy says and it strikes me as relevent. Can you just put a sentence that says something like "Some scholars speculate that because Gregory purchases English slaves to be trained as monks, that he had planned to use them as interpreters but other scholars disagree....." or something to that effect to cover the differences in scholarly opinions? NancyHeise ^talk 02:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Further, we don't know if the slaves were ever bought. Markus discusses the letter ordering the purchase, but whether the boys were bought or not is never mentioned again by Markus in his biography of Gregory nor in any other source I've read. It's not that some historians speculate, it's only Duffy. No other historian I've read for this article speculates on that, so I think mentioning it would be undue weight here. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me, if Duffy is the only one to make this speculation its OK to leave it out especially since it is speculation and not a solid fact. NancyHeise ^talk 12:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, I did some more checking and found that Duffy is not the only scholar to suggest that these English slaves were being sent on the mission - see this Routledge Press book by Donald Logan pages 51 and 52 [16]. I think you should insert this in the article just to cover all POV's.NancyHeise ^talk 13:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, Logan doesn't say they were interpreters, he says "... quite possibly with a view of sending them on a future mission to their own people." This speculation is already covered in the article. And it's an interpretation that's pretty common among historians. You're asking me to add Duffy's further speculation that they were interpreters instead of missionaries or on top of being missionaries, and it's the interpreter speculation that isn't covered by any other source I've seen. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, right, I see where that information is in "Motivations". I think you're right, I don't see any other authors saying that they were used as interpreters and your article portrays the use of English slave boys properly. I am fine with this. NancyHeise ^talk 13:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Section entitled "Pagan practices". Is there any information that we can include about what pagan practices were? Were they polygamists, slave traders, child sacrificers; did they practice infanticide or other things that conflicted with Christian beliefs? NancyHeise ^talk 02:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

We know next to nothing about the Anglo-Saxon pagan beliefs. We barely know the names of some of their gods. That's about it. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Can that be mentioned in the section? NancyHeise ^talk 02:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It could, but I'm not sure why it needs to be, quite honestly. It strikes me as not really important to the mission itself to explicitly state that we don't know something. There's a link to Anglo-Saxon paganism in the lead, for those interested in specifics. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh OK, I didn't see that link. I dislike Wikipedia's first mention rule about wikilinking. I don't think it helps Readers find information. Although I would like to see that linked in this section, I'll wait and see what others have to say. NancyHeise ^talk 02:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph you're looking at here is far enough down that I went ahead and threw a link in there too. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's better. NancyHeise ^talk 12:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Some points Dodwell Anglo-Saxon Art is not in the references, & the notes all misspell "pictoral" for "pictorial" in the other Dodwell. I'd drop the Vespasian Psalter personally, but there is a lost Bible of St Gregory mentioned at Canterbury I'll try to dig up. It's clear from other early AS miniatures (like the Vespasian Psalter) that there were other Italian books around, as you would expect. Looks to be the usual quality generally, but I need to read through properly. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I included Vespasian Psalter because there is three/four articles on it out there, getting into the seriously covered territory, but if you feel it's not needed, we can drop it. I'll throw Dodwell in the refs, sometimes I get interupted while adding stuff and the bibliographic stuff gets missed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Added the missing Dodwell and fixed the spelling. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added the "Gospel of St Gregory". I'd drop the Vespasian psalter because the evidence connecting it to Augustine is not so much "slight" as non-existent; there has been much controversy on its date, but ranging from c720 (David Wright) and c775 (Wilson, claiming support from others). The earlier view seems to be winning out, but that is still a century too late. There is another MS, I think unilluminated, that is supposed to have some reasonable chance of coming from Italy to the mission, but I can't track it down. Must we convert all book cites to US editions, even where only the original UK edition has been used (Wilson), and where the US reprint was 3 years later (Dodwell, Anglo-Saxon)? I'd have thought some version of WP:ENGVAR should apply; it is very irritating. It's "Burns & Oates" not "Oats", btw. Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

We should cite the edition we use, you gave a 1984 date on the Wilson, so I assumed it was the US edition that you used. If you used the UK editon, I can switch it out. I cite the US on Dodwell, because that's the edition I have. I'll drop the Vespasian in a second. (I included it as part of an effort to be inclusive on the art stuff! At least I'm hunting for it now!) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Wilson was the UK edn. The "artnet" web ref (ref 12?) is the start of the Grove entry, no? This should be indicated somehow. Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Both fixed. Sorry for me misunderstanding about the Wilson ref. My bad. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, all sorted. More below. Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Image review

• File:English kingdoms 600.gif - The font on the map is difficult to read, even when viewed in full resolution - this needs to be fixed. Ideally, maps should be in SVG format. There is a service on Wikipedia that will do the switch for you (ask for help here).
• File:Gregory I - Antiphonary of Hartker of Sankt Gallen.jpg - Can you make the source a little clearer for this image?
• File:AugsutineGospelsFolio129vStLuke.jpg - Please add a date to the image description.
• File:St Boniface - Baptising-Martyrdom - Sacramentary of Fulda - 11Century.jpg - Can we get more detailed source information on this? Is an author known? If not, please write "unknown" in the author field.

Not much to do here at all. I'm enjoying the article - will post a full review soon. Awadewit (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've dealt with all but the map. I have a help request out to Mike (who made the map) and Malleus (who is a wizard with non-photographic image files) for help on the map. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Pending any changes to the map, I've replaced it with a different, SVG version. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• All image issues have been resolved. Awadewit (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional support This article is well-structured and clearly written. After reading it, I have a clear idea of what the mission was and what it achieved. I was particularly impressed with how well the historical questions about evidence were presented - differing theories were distinct and fairly presented. I've listed a few sentences below that could do with some polishing and/or expansion, but these are minor issues:

• As well as the delegation's missionary purpose, Gregory probably hoped it would add to the areas in which the primacy of the pope was acknowledged, and perhaps also have an influence over the increasing power of the Kentish state. - This sentence is awkward - "add to the areas" and "have an influence" are not clear phrasings.

* Changed to "As well as the delegation's missionary purpose, Gregory probably hoped it would increase areas acknowledging papal primacy, and perhaps influence the Kentish state." Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

How did he think it would influence the Kentish state? Awadewit (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just removed the phrase from the lead. I can't think of a way to explain it in concise phrasing, and it's borderline being mentioned in the lead anyway. it's more that Kent's power was on the rise when the mission set out, which probably influenced the location more than the motivation behind the mission. (At one point, there was a much longer discussion of this in the lead, which has been slowly whittled away as the rest of the article grew bigger.) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Material remains testify to a growing Christian presence, at least until about 360 - What kinds of remains?

• added examples. Mainly it's objects inscribed with christian symbols, lead basins, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Archaeological evidence suggests that there was much variation in the way that the tribes established themselves in Britain, which implies that the Germanic tribes' settlement aggravated existing problems that caused Roman culture to change from an urban to a rural civilisation. - I don't see the "implication" - I think this material needs to be explained better.

• I've reworded this to tie it closer into the preceding sentences, and make it's connection more clear. Hopefully this is better? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I still don't understand how evidence of a variation in establishment suggests that the Germanic tribes aggravated existing problems. Could you explain it to me slowly? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Some sections of Britain were settled more densely with the tribes. We get that from the number of pagan burials, and the density of them. Burials also show variation with what was in them, some regions have more warrior type goods in the burials than others, suggesting that some regions had more warriors, while other regions had more farming settlement. Some of the burials in places lack weapons and the bones show malnutrition, suggesting peasants were buried there. That make more sense? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• That makes much more sense - could you explain that way in the article? Awadewit (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I threw it into an explanatory note, since it'd be a big chunk of information that would disrupt the flow of the text. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• However it happened, the effects of the Anglo-Saxon settlement was that when Augustine arrived in 597, the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms had little continuity with the Roman civilisation that had preceded them in Britain - wordy

• Reworded to "However it happened, the net effect was that when Augustine arrived in 597, the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms had little continuity with the preceding Roman civilisation." Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Other sources include biographies of Pope Gregory, including a life written in Northern England as well as a 9th-century life by a Roman writer - Is there a date for the life written in Northern England?

• Added in dates. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is some inconsistency in the article's presentation of centuries: some are written as numerals and some are spelled out. Please choose one style and stick with it.

• Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Archaeological remains support the notion that there were cultural influences from Francia in England at that time - What kind of remains?

• My source doesn't specify what sorts, just says "A Frankis presence or at least a marked cultural Frankish influence has long been detected in the archaeological record of southern England in the sixth century." It's cited to two archaeological reports that I don't have access to. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Another reason for the pause may have been the receipt of news of the death of King Childebert II, who had been expected to lend the missionaries aid - "lend...aid" seemed like a strange phrase to me - lend them money or give them aid?

• "Lend aid" is a phrase you'll see often in the older historians works. Have reworded to "... who had been expected to help the missionaries;" Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• When Laurence woke up, he showed the whip marks, which had happened to him physically during the dream, to the new Kentish king, who promptly was converted and recalled the exiled bishops - awkwardly phrased

• Reworded to "When Laurence woke up the whip mark had miraculously appeared on his body. He showed these marks to the new Kentish king, who promptly was converted and recalled the exiled bishops." It's just an awkward episode!
• Indeed! Awadewit (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Once the image issues are resolved, I will fully support. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Working on the image issues next. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now fully supported! Awadewit (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support and comments Ah, bishops travelling through Britain, presumably on horses? Up to your usual standard, so I'll support anyway, but a few concerns jimfbleak (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • As well as the delegation's missionary purpose, Gregory probably hoped it would increase areas acknowledging papal primacy seems inelegant to me. Would something like Gregory probably hoped the delegation would expand the areas acknowledging papal primacy, as well as fulfilling its missionary role. be any better?
  • Evidence for the continued existence of Christianity in the eastern part of Britain during this time... makes it sound as if there was any doubt about the existence - having said that I'm not sure how to improve it
  • Bede no link? Even I've heard of him also Liudhard needs a link
  • "however" sprinkled like confetti. Could you check that they are all necessary, and not just padding?
  • apocalypse - wikilink?
  • Gregory was not popular in Rome, and it was not until Bede's Ecclesisastical History began to circulate that Gregory's cult also took root in Rome. Do we need the second in Rome?

jimfbleak (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Replies.

• Changed to "add to the areas acknowledging", as the existing areas weren't expanding
• Liudhard now linked.
• "Howevers" have been pruned.
• Apocalypse now linked.
• Changed to Gregory was not popular in Rome, and it was not until Bede's Ecclesisastical History began to circulate that Gregory's cult also took root there.

--Malleus Fatuorum 16:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Anything about Dark Age Britain (from about 400 AD to 650 AD or so) is very... fluid. Especially so for the pre-600 period. We just don't know much. There is Gildas and what Bede wrote, but we need to take both those sources with a big grain of salt. It's assumed that Christianity remained, but it's pretty much an assumption and some meagre bits of evidence. Not much written evidence, and some of the archaeological evidence is equivocal, so it's best to say that evidence is scanty. We're pretty sure there were Christians among the native Britons, but where/how much/how they were organized, etc. is not really known. Make more sense? And thanks Malleus for catching the prose glitches. I do like HOwever though! --Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments

• "His wife, Bertha of Kent, was a practising Christian, and before her marriage had been a Frankish princess" - which she remained after it. Why not "His wife, Bertha of Kent, was a Frankish princess and practising Christian."

Fixed. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Augustine was the prior of Gregory's own monastic foundation in Rome," link San Gregorio Magno al Celio. This left me unclear if Gregory was the founder or a monk there - in fact he was both, having set the monastery up in the family house.

Fixed. I've linked it in the body of the article, left it just "Gregory's own monastery" in the lead.--Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "bearing items and books" sounds odd - "bearing books and other items"

Malleus fixed this. --Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Although the missionaries were unable to remain in all of the places they evangelised" - "evangelized" is intransitive without a preposition. Either:"Although the missionaries were unable to remain in all of the places where they had evangelised" or something with "worked" or "made conversions".

Fixed. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "by the time the last of them died in 653 they had established themselves" - "by the time the last of the original group died in 653 they had established [something else]" - if they were all dead they hadn't "established themselves". The next bit "and had contributed a Roman tradition to Christianity in Britain" could be improved too.

Changed to "established Christianity" and made the last clause "... had contributed a Roman tradition to the practice of Christianity in Britain." --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "and the style of the tonsure haircut" - helps the uninformed I know, but tautology nonetheless.

Changed to "tonsure, or haircut, ..." --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• link Boniface, unless it is not the famous one.(he is linked later, re the synod, & then again - 1 removed). Are we not using "Saint" s?

I generally use "Saint" when discussing events after the saint's death, and since I'm not here, I've avoided it. I find if use Saint all the time it implies that the person was a saint before they became canonized. --Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "In 595, when Pope Gregory I decided to send a mission—often called the Gregorian mission" - put last bit in the lead, or drop it.

Fixed. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "and if not for the discovery of a gold coin bearing the inscription Leudardus Eps (Eps is an abbreviation of Episcopus, the Latin word for bishop) his existence may have been doubted." -"may" is the wrong tense, and is there not enough documentary evidence to confirm him, by 6th century standards?

The source says his existence might have been doubted. I believe our first evidence for him comes from Bede, not from Gregory's letters, so that may be the reason for possible doubt. --Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "with orders to be consecrated as a bishop if needed" - sounds odd; was he supposed to consecrate himself?

Clarified. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"Gregory not only targeted the British..." gets repetitive. Better with last sentence of the para collapsed into this one: "Gregory not only targeted the British with his missionary efforts, but he also supported other missionary endeavours, encouraging bishops and kings to work together for the conversion of non-Christians within their territories.[42][44] He urged the conversion of the heretical Arians in Italy and elsewhere, as well as the conversion of Jews. Also pagans in Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica were the subject of letters to officials, urging their conversion.[43]"

Done. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Some scholars suggest that Gregory's main motivation was to increase the number of Christians;[28] others wonder if more practical matters such as extending the primacy of the papacy to additional provinces and the recruitment of new Christians looking to Rome for leadership were also involved." - reads awkwardly. Rather a distinction without a difference, and why the 2nd is "more practical" than the 1st is not entirely clear. More political perhaps.

Changed to "political" and changed the political at the start of the following sentence to "such". --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "the language barrier between the two regions was apparently only a minor obstacle," that this was more minor in Kent than elsewhere in Anglo-Saxon England might need citing.

This is cited at the first following footnote. All the information in the first five sentences is sourced to the footnote at the end of the fifth sentence. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "support from the Frankish kingdom" - weren't there several?

My understanding is that theoretically they were subkingdoms acknowledging one overlord, but I'll change this to "Frankish kings" just to make it more precise. I've been trying to avoid the whole problem of "was it one kingdom with subkings or lots of kingdoms" by some fancy word choice. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Most likely, they halted in the Rhone valley" - not really British FA prose style. I've changed another one just after.

Wider points, that the sources must cover, I'm sure.

• No mention of the Hiberno-Scottish missions to the Continent, that Gregory must have been aware of (Columbanus was supposed to have sent him letters, though apparently without an answer). Whatever the doziness of the Britons, the Irish had established Luxeuil Abbey in 585-590, and others in Gaul & Germany, & Gregory may well (& correctly) have thought they would start on the Anglo-Saxons if he did not get there first.

• Markus doesn't mention that as a possible motivation in his work on Gregory, nor do York or Mayr-Harting, both of whom have written reasonably recent works on the conversion. In fact, they both seem to argue that in the end Gregory knew very little of the actual situation on the ground in Britain. If you can find me a cite for that as a possible motivation, I'll be glad to include it, but I've not yet run across it in my (rather extensive) readings. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just I haven't seen it yet. --Ealdgyth - Talk 23:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the situation on the ground in Gaul & Germany. Am I right that the article does not link to Hiberno-Scottish mission at all? Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

At one point it did, somewhere. Whether this went elsewhere in the copyedits, I'll have to check. It should. --Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Has been relinked back in, in the lead and in this section. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Æthelberht must have been aware that paganism was just ceasing to be respectable in the European politics of the day, & that it was getting harder and harder for pagans & Christians to enjoy friendly relations. That some of the Franks were apparently sniffing around claims to his kingdom, which if it remained pagan might easily have obtained Papal support, must have occured to him, one would think. Both the Norman Invasion of England in 1066 and their invasion of Ireland had Papal backing, the Christian powers that be of the time not being well enough in with the Pope.

• Again, if you can find me a citation for it, I'll include it. Higham, in Convert Kings doesn't mention that as a possible motivation, although he has a number of other possible motivations for Æthelberht converting. --Ealdgyth - Talk 23:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• " Other than the trip by Laurence, little is known of what undertakings the missionaries performed in the period " - "Other than the trip by Laurence, little is known of the activities of the missionaries in the period" seems better.

• Done. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "The conferred pallium was the symbol of metropolitan status, and signified that Augustine as a new Gregorian archbishop" - Messy - cut "conferred", grammar, why "Gregorian"?

• Changed to "The pallium was the symbol of metropolitan status, and signified that Augustine was in union with the Roman papacy." --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "which for reasons unrecorded never happened" - enough unrecorded reasons follow, cut to "which never happened".

• Fixed. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• The well-known quote from the letter to Mellitus would add character here.
• Eadbald bit gets rather tangled; maybe needs another look.

• The whole subject of Eadbald is one of those lovely tangles that historians love to argue about. I've done a copyedit on it, hopefully making it a bit less wooly. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "The missionaries were forced to proceed slowly, and were unable to do much about destroying the pagan practices" - I don't think you destroy a practice, maybe: "The missionaries were forced to proceed slowly, and were unable to eliminate pagan practices, or destroy ...." To have paganism made illegal within 45 years is not bad going! It took Rome far longer.

• reworded. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• " to combine with the Gaulish and the Irish strands already present" - was there really a Gaulish strand? And the Celtic strand was not just Irish.

• Yeah, there was, not counting Bertha's bishop, there was also Felix, who came from the continent and was only kinda connected with the Roman missionaries. And there were possibly some Franks present who influenced things. Changed Irish to Hiberno-Irish. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Changed to Hiberno-British! I notice Wilson, in a similar comment (p.12), treats these two as distinct even in the 660s, also allowing a Frankish strand. Johnbod (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am following these, and will get to them tomorrow if my head stops pounding like a bass drum. (If Malleus doesn't beat me to them) --Ealdgyth - Talk 00:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Late point - A sentence on the introduction of the Roman chant could be added to the last section. Not something I know about. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

DUH! Added. A real "face-palm" moment, there. --Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• A couple more:

• It should be made clearer that the second meeting with the Brits was with different people at a different place. Their "great monastery" is now Bangor Cathedral.

• I'm not sure why this level of detail is important? Also, it appears from some works that the monastery Bede talked about (whose monks prayed before the Battle of Chester, which is the great monastery I presume you're referring to..) is actually located in Bangor-on-Dee. (Wallace-Hadrill's Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People p. 54)

• Anyone reading the text as it is would assume they were the same people in the same place, which was not the case. Since everybody agrees the British side of the matter is under-represented in the sources, I rather agree with Xandar below that where we have information, it should be included. I'm not sure the 7 bishops monastery & the Battle of Chester one are the same - I notice the Fordham Bede translates them differently. Johnbod (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Have reworded and added a bit more. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Adding this online Bede would be a useful external link.

• Done. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Since there is so much discussion of everybody's motives, the possibility that King A invited them (leaving "initiated" aside), should probably be mentioned quickly. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• "One of Bertha's biographers states that, influenced by his wife, Æthelberht requested Pope Gregory to send missionaries." in the Immediate background section. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Meets FA criteria, & Ealdgyth's usual high standards. Any chance of her widening her scope to do some of the Celtic church articles, which really need improvement? Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, my next FAC candidate isn't a bishop or a horse or anyone clerical. It is a person though. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support. A good, comprehensive article, but there are some quite important flaws.

• The Lead. I think it needs to state early on that the mission was significant and ultimately successful. It was one of the most significant advances for Christianity of the age, and that needs to be made clear. It had later implications for mission to Germany.

• The Roman mission however, wasn't the whole story though. After the initial successes, they were pretty much confined to the southern parts, and while they had influence later, Northumbria and the western parts were converted as much by the Irish and others as by the Gregorian missionaries efforts. The part about it being successful within it's limits, however, does need to be mentioned in the lead. --Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• I"ve added a bit to the lead. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That's definitely an improvement. Xandar 00:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Background" section. This is the biggest problem with the article, as I see it. Starting the section with the withdrawal of the Roman legions in 410 is confusing, since you then go back in time to mention the establishment of Christianity in Britain, then come forward again, to talk about the Anglo Saxons. It would be best to start by stating that Britannia was largely Christian by the end of the 4th century, with details of the Bishops etc., and then go on to the withdrawal of Roman troops and the pagan invasions.

• Will rework. --Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• And have done so. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This reads much better now. Thanks. Xandar 00:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Mention of the "native celtic church" in this section is confusingly done. The article needs to distinguish between the "British" church, ie the Church of Roman Britain, which survived in Wales and the West of England, and the "Celtic" Church of Ireland and later Western Scotland. I don't think there's a lot of evidence that the British Church developed under influence of missionaries from Ireland - rather the reverse - with Patrick, being a leader in the founding of the Irish church, and Saint David inspiring Irish monasticism and figures such asSaint Finnian. The British Church (as opposed to the Celtic Church) was hostile to evangelising the Saxons.

• I'll double check this to be sure that the terminology is consistent. --Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• I"ve removed the offending "under influence of Irish missionaries" which I believe was meant to apply to a discussion about the Pictish and northern Britian conversion which later got axed. Should be a bit clearer now. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that solves the problem, although ideally I would have liked a little more on the British Church. Xandar 00:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Did Roman Culture "change from an urban to a rural civilisation", or did it just break down? I would say the latter. The cities were abandoned, the villas burned, transport, industry, trade and infrastructure broke down. People walled themselves up in towns or old forts. A few years later they were saying the cities had been built by giants. That's not "rural civilisation." So the statement "it is likely that" the former happened, is going too far in the way of endorsing recent revisionist views. The half sentence "..or if it merely was a coincidence that the decline of Roman culture in the later Roman Empire happened at the same time that Germanic tribes settled in Britain, is unclear." Is unneccessary. I've never heard the collapse of the Roman Empire called a coincidence before. Why not just shorten this passage and say that there was a breakdown in Roman society, economic and religious structures when the invaders arrived, rather than get into a debate on reasons for the decline?

• Current historical thinking is that the barbarian invasions weren't quite so fire-death-and-destruction. And the statement of "coincidence" is exactly what the source states. It is possible that Roman culture was breaking down on the frontiers before the Saxons settled in Britain, we just don't know. --Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't know fully, but the way this section is written implies that we do. The most problematic sentence here is: "Because the archaeological evidence suggests that there was much variation in the way that the tribes established themselves in Britain, it is likely that the Germanic tribes' settlement aggravated existing problems that caused Roman culture to change from an urban to a rural civilisation, rather than the tribes causing the decline on their own." This is referenced to Yorke's 1990 Kings and Kingdoms, which does not seem to state this so boldly, and remains only one view. Her later book the 2006 Conversion of Britain seems in pages 43-45 to return to the view of a more devastating Saxon impact. I would also decline to write off the only contemporary historian, Gildas, as well as the linguistic evidence and that of Britonic flight to Armorica. The very fact that there are no written records argues against the concept of a "rural civilisation." However is this even the article for such a debate to take place? The offending sentence adds little to the main topic. Wouldn't it be simpler just to remove it? (The note could still remain, attached to the previous sentence.) And the issue of what caused the destruction of Roman culture could be left to a more relevant article, with more room to discuss the differing evidence and viewpoints. Xandar 00:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC).

I think it's important to note that the Roman urban culture had pretty much vanished by the time the mission arrived, but I've chopped down the offending sentence to "The archaeological evidence suggests that there was much variation in the way that the tribes established themselves in Britain, which happened concurrently with the disappearance of the urban, Roman culture in Britain." which leaves the exact cause of that disappearance to other articles. That work? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That's great. I think that resolves my concerns. Xandar 11:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• In "Motivations", the section starts: "Some historians take the view that Gregory initiated the mission". Surely this should be "Most historians"?

* I had "historians" but Nancy insisted it be changed to only "some historians" ... see the discussion above. --Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read your conversations with Nancy, but this wording still perplexes me. I think Nancy's point was about the motivations some historians apply to Gregory in initiating the mission. However the sentence that starts "Some historians", is written in such a way that it implies that most historians DON'T believe that Gregory initiated the mission! To correct this, (I presume) false impression, would it not be better to recast the sentence into something like: "Historians take the view that Gregory initiated the mission, although some remain unclear as to his precise motivation." or "Some historians remain unclear as to the exact motivation behind Gregory's initiation of the Augustinian Mission."

Xandar 02:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay, now it's clearer to me what the problem is. Actually, there are some historians who think Æthelberht initiated the mission, by sending a letter to Gregory asking for a mission to be sent. Ian Wood and Janet Nelson are two of those. (they are mentioned in the paragraph before this) Most historians seem to feel that Gregory was behind the idea of the mission, but those two historians are noted enough in the field to make it impossible for me to say that ALL "historians take the view that Gregory initiated the mission" Can we settle on "Most historians take the view that.."? --Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That would solve the problem then. Xandar 15:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Reworded. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Saw the FTC, and I've been wondering why Ealdgyth had some articles on her page that weren't featured... :) ceranthor 12:35, 21 June 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 22:48, 27 June 2009 [17].

---

House (TV series)

Nominator(s): --Music26/11 12:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this article has really improved since its last (suddenly interrupted) FAC, thanks to various copy-edits. If you have comments about the cast image, see the previous FAC. I believe the article meets all the criteria now. Thanks.--Music26/11 12:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• "The character has similarities to Sherlock Holmes; both are forensic geniuses, musicians, drug users, aloof, and largely friendless." Colon, surely. In your list, where is the boundary between nouns and adjectives? Jerks the reader.
  • done.--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• It has been largely filmed. I find "Holmes uses a similar method" a little difficult, since it was so long ago. Unsure. Present for House and past for SH might be a good device ...?
  • Why has been? the show still films there. Holmes comment is fixed.--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Hate those fly-spots after every single "Dr". Oh well, it's your choice, I guess. While I usually ask for more constrained blue in links, via piping, here, it's odd that "Dr" is not included in all of those name-links.
  • What exactly do you want me to do?--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. "Dr." included in blue links when title preceding name. (As our friend Tony knows, those "fly-spots" are good American English style.)—DCGeist (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• "Conception"—second, maybe third paras are stubby.
  • Maybe, but merging them is hard, do you have any suggestions?--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Merged third with fourth paragraph, eliminating some stubbiness. Given both the verifiable substance and the structural logic of the subsection, it looks like the second paragraph works best as is. DocKino (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
      • We've taken care of that one as well now.—DCGeist (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• "doctors...check"—spaces (non-breaking, probably) either side of the ellipsis dots.
  • Done.--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• The others are linked, but The West Wing isn't.
  • Done.--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Multi-clutter citation numbers: Is it possible to conflate each set into one? If they're not used elsewhere, I can't see why not: "Critics considered the series to be a bright spot amid FOX's schedule, largely filled with reality shows,[112][113][114] and reacted positively to the character of Gregory House.[115][116] Tom Shales of The Washington Post called him, "the most electrifying character to hit television in years".[117] Critics have compared House to fictional detectives Adrian Monk, Hercule Poirot, Nero Wolfe, and Perry Cox.[118][119][120] Laurie's performance in the role has been praised by critics.[119][121]". So hard to read; so unattractive.
  • Yes, this is something of which all nominators should be aware. The simple merging of unique cites goes a long way toward making an article more readable. I'll take care of them here.—DCGeist (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Done.—DCGeist (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Table: I'd always use just two closing digits, and here it will make the whole thing more manageable within the limited space: e.g., 2006–07. Remove "in" from "in millions". Do you need the #s? Distribution table: the countries (exotic and little known) are all linked? They don't even pipe to something more specific. Please ...
  • Done.--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Ref list. Do you really like the ISO gobbly dates? Not good when you get strings such as "2008-01-29. No. 10, season 4." Trust me, most readers would love the month to be spelled out. But it's up to you.
  • Fixed by Dabomb87.--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This is good as far as I can tell on a swift look through. But it could be polished up a bit. Tony (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I used a script to convert to MDY format. Revert if you don't like. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you.--Music26/11 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Overall, this is looking in good shape. One significant exception: the episode citations are a complete mess.

• They all read House M.D. Obviously, they must all be changed to House.
  • Done.--Music26/11 19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• The links to the episode articles appear to be nonfunctional (check 'em out).
  • That's a problem with the cite episode template. It is protected so I can't change it.--Music26/11 19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Some of the citations list just the writer(s); some list David Shore and the writer(s); some (e.g., "Frozen", "Honeymoon") have no credits at all. These must be made completely consistent. If you choose to include Shore in all (as opposed to none), then he must be identified as "Creator" and the writer(s) as "Writer(s)" (in that case, for episodes written by Shore, he should be identified as "Creator/Writer").
  • All episode refs only include the writer.--Music26/11 19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

One other thing. It seems weird to learn about the Foreman-Thirteen and Chase-Cameron romances only in Critical reception. And there's no mention of the House-Cuddy...whatever it is...at all. All of these relationships should be mentioned either in Series overview or Cast or characters (where it does mention that Cameron "developed an affection for Chase"--that's fine, but insufficient.)—DCGeist (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'll work on that, however, the full fifth season hasn't been broadcasted in the Netherlands yet (that's where I edit from), so I can't fully describe the Thirteen-Foreman or Huddy relationship.--Music26/11 19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think all the romances could be mentioned in the main characters section since they are all between main characters. It might also be a good idea to mention House and Cameron's relationship. That could be fit in the first paragraph of the recurring characters section since it ties in with Vogler. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Information on relationships has been added to the main characters section. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Casting, then Cast and characters, with a template linking back to a section within the same article?? Have never seen such a layout, doesn't seem optimal. Also, there are collapsed templates in "Critics' top ten lists"; default should be show, not hide, for printability and mirrors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• The casting section could be moved, but I think it casting has more to do with production than with the characters. Also, the reason why it links back to the same article is for people who are looking for casting info and might have skipped it.--Music26/11 18:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Music here that the casting section in this article is probably more suited to be in the production section. After the production section you have the series overview and characters sections which are both in-universe, whereas the casting section is out of universe and probably fits better in production. This is possibly true of all TV show articles and putting casting in the characters section might not be the best way to go about it. A way to solve this issue for this article would be to rename the "Cast and characters" section simply "Characters" and delete the template for the casting note. I'm not sure if that really improves anything though, it's probably fine the way it is. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Music and Marble on the basic structure. The same thought did occur to me about renaming "Cast and characters" simply "Characters". What do you think, Music? The template as well, though it certainly does no harm, is not necessary. If its elimination brings the article more into conformity with standard style, that's a valid argument for cutting it. DocKino (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• This discussion ties into another situation I'm thinking about right now. I made some edits to the article today and one of them cut a mention of Laurie as an executive producer because the reference and other evidence doesn't back it up. However I'd like to add that reference back in somewhere as it mentions Laurie made around $400,000 per episode in season 5, which is pretty interesting information I think. I don't know where it would best fit in the article though. It doesn't exactly fit in casting because it's about a cast member but not the casting process, and it doesn't fit in with the cast and characters because that section is about in-universe characters, not how much money Laurie is making. So basically after thinking about this I think the best thing to do would be to just rename the section "Main characters" (or simply "Characters" if people prefer) and remove the casting note since there won't be any ambiguity anymore. I think I'll just do that now, if anyone disagrees or wants to modify it you can revert my change. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I changed the title of that section to "Characters and story arcs" which I think fits well. The comprehensiveness of this article looks good. One thing I think is missing though is a little more information about the story arcs. House getting shot which was the arc in the season 2 finale and beginning of season 3 is mentioned in the Sherlock Holmes section but I think that could probably use a mention somewhere in the "Characters and story arcs" section too. In response to DCGeist's comments, relationships could be expanded a little in that section as well. There were a couple major events that happened in the season 5 finale, those could probably be mentioned somehow. I will finish looking over the article and references and see if I find anything else than can be improved. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Renaming the section to "Characters and story arcs" was a good decision, I'll try to add some more info regarding relationships etc. to the section tomorrow (I don't have a lot of time right now). Oh, I didn't know where to put the salary info either that's why I left it out, also is Laurie really not an executive producer? I think I saw his name after the credits once. That's it, thanks.--Music26/11 18:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: With additions and copyediting by various hands, the article is looking increasingly strong. On a structural level, I have only one remaining, relatively minor, concern. Do we really need a subsection and highly detailed table for DVD releases? The table is pretty, but doesn't seem terribly encyclopedic. I argue for cutting the table and simply making the text of the subsection the last paragraph of the parent Distribution section.

Please note that I have already cut another pretty table from that section. As I explained in my edit summary, the table that gave the networks where the show airs in six selected countries was both (a) 100% redundant of the accompanying text and (b) wildly incomplete--implying that the show airs only in English-speaking countries. On that note, we should have a sentence or two on the show's presence in non-English-speaking countries; there must be something out there up to WP:V standard.—DCGeist (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I searched quite a bit, and there doesn't seem to be any good sources for its overall global distribution. I was able to find good references for its popularity in a couple of non-English-speaking countries, and have added a sentence covering that.DocKino (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Just found and added much more on foreign distribution from Variety.DocKino (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with you on all points here pretty much. Most people are reluctant to remove tables like these because they are pretty, but they don't really add much. What I think we should do is move all the relevent date information and references to the table already at List of House episodes, that way the information is still being used. But it's not that necessary or helpful to this article, it doesn't matter much what specific date each season's DVD was released in each region. The distributions section could and probably should be expanded a little with any relevant information that was lost, but I think you're right that none of the tables there add that much. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree as well, there was a brief discussion regarding this just before the previous FAc (see this). You can remove it if you think it is redundant.--Music26/11 14:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Once the information on the main characters' relationships is added, I'm ready to support.—DCGeist (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I added the info about the Foreman-Thirteen and Chase-Cameron relationships, and you guys did a good job cleaning the prose up and adding more references. I just added in info about House and Cuddy's relationship with some references. So I think this article might be ready for featured status. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Question and comment (unrelated to above update): I'm pretty sure I solved the "mystery" of Hugh Laurie as executive producer. Firstly though I have a question: is Film.com, which is part of RealNetworks, a reliable enough source to be used for a featured article such as this one? At a glance at the site and looking at their FAQs, it doesn't appear to accept member-submitted info like TV.com or IMDb, but I might be wrong. I ask because Film.com lists all the writer, producer, director, etc. info for all House episodes, which could be used for a reference in the "production team" section for the info about who wrote and directed the most episodes. I also ask because I discovered that Hugh Laurie was credited as executive producer for episodes 2 and 3 of season 5: [18], [19]. It appears those were the only 2 episodes he was given an executive producer credit and that would corroborate the reference that says he'll get a "producing credit", it was just for those 2 episodes. So I don't think he should be listed in the infobox under executive producers but it could be mentioned in the "production team" section he was for those 2 episodes. The question is if Film.com can be used as a reference. If it can't I found this Blogcritics reference that mentions Laurie as executive producer: [20], and Blogcritics appears to be deemed reliable since it's used in some other references in the article already. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, Film.com looks like a good source. Everything I've been able to find out about it suggests that information-wise it is a completely professional site.—DCGeist (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Terrific job, everyone. With a lot of hard work, you've turned this into a high-quality, comprehensive TV series article.—DCGeist (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Support I've been a contributor to this article for awhile now, but had for a time not edited this article much. Big credit to Music2611 for greatly expanding the article and adding in a lot of references and pushing the article's comprehensiveness and verifiability to featured quality. Previous FAC was dominated by discussion on the image in the characters section, but that has been resolved. All issues brought up on this FAC have been resolved. Big thanks to all the editors who have helped make the final push to make this article comprehensive and have sharp prose. This article has been greatly polished since the start of this FAC, and I think is featured article quality now. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Support It's there. I just want to say that there are articles that first come to FAC needing less substantive work than this one did when it first appeared here five weeks ago--but quite a few of those never make it all the way because psychological issues ("ownership", defensiveness, etc.) turn the effort to achieve FA standards into a trial. This FAC process, on the other hand, has been a pleasure to participate in. Thanks to LonelyMarble for all the effort on the article over the past 17 months, and a timely reappearance here; to DCGeist for some superb copyediting; and, of course, to Music2611--it's not only the effort of the nominator that makes the difference, but also the attitude. Well done. DocKino (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support per DocKino. I see no problems at all (and I'm a fan of the series and would really love to see it on the main page). It meets all of the criteria without question. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose, leaning toward support. I have a number of relatively small issues with the article, but they unfortunately add up to an oppose. Several of them, you can just ignore if you disagree (I have labeled these as such). Added: I have found a number of sources that are misrepresented in the article or used as citations for statements that they do not justify. This is absolutely unacceptable in any article, much less a featured one.
  • "FOX officially credits Shore as creator." I think this might read better as "only Shore". That's really nitpicky. Ignore if you like.
    • I think it's fine the way it is, saying "only" is possibly misleading and inaccurate because I'm sure FOX acknowledges the contributions of all the initial executive producers. Shore had a more prominent role as he wrote the pilot, and this is explained in the conception section. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Best as is.—DCGeist (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "House's diagnostic team originally consists of " Should this really be present tense? I could go either way, but "At the end of the third season, this team is disbanded." is in past tense so I think the other sentence should be as well for consistency.
    • Addressed with "disbands". (Please be aware, "is disbanded" is not past tense, but simple present tense in passive voice. The passive voice was used to suggest the team was acted upon, but as two of the three [Foreman and Cameron] are agents of their own departure, the active voice is more appropriate.)—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • You're quite right, I quite glossed over the "is" the first time I read it and just saw "disbanded". I think disbands is the best anyway, though. Cool3 (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Rejoined by Foreman, House gradually selects three new team members: Dr. Remy "Thirteen" Hadley (Olivia Wilde), Dr. Chris Taub (Peter Jacobson), and Dr. Lawrence Kutner (Kal Penn)."
    • If the problem here is "Rejoined by Foreman", I don't think this is a problem. All prose about fictional storylines, as is the case in this article, should be in present tense, but qualifiers at the beginning of sentences like this one are fine I think. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In my very humble opinion, again feel free to ignore, Amber is sufficiently significant to merit a mention in the lead.
    • The lead is already fleshed out and is a nice summary, I don't think it should be any longer. Some of the other recurring characters had comparable airtime as Amber, I think it's probably best to not mention any recurring characters in the lead to avoid making it too long. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Agreed. There's a sufficient amount of in-universe information in the lead already.—DCGeist (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • " After three seasons among the top ten rated shows in the United States, it fell to nineteenth overall during the 2008–09 season. " Shouldn't some mention of the first season be made?
    • I was initially going to make clear somehow that seasons 2–4 were among the top 10, but I don't think it's necessary. The lead is supposed to be a succinct summary and this is explained further on in the reception section. The fact that season 5 was 19th overall probably doesn't have to be mentioned. I think it's probably mentioned to help make the article neutral and because it's the latest season so it's more relevant for most readers. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I think it would be better either to say something about the first season or drop the mention of Season 5. Although it is stated in the infobox, the number of seasons is not made clear anywhere in the lead. Mentioning 4 seasons makes it seem like there were 4 four seasons, not 5. Cool3 (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • It was a little ambiguous but I changed it to make clear seasons 2, 3, and 4 were among the top 10. I don't really think a mention of season 1's ratings needs to be said because it would seem a bit awkward, whereas the latest season's ratings is more relevant. Plus, the final sentence of the lead already makes clear the show has aired for five seasons with a sixth scheduled for September 2009. I don't think there is any ambiguity here anymore. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • " Gail Berman, made clear, "I want a medical show, but I don’t want to see white coats going down the hallway."" I think the quote needs better introduction than "made clear". I think it would be better to say something more like "told the creators"
    • Done.—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "of Berton Roueché, a staff writer for The New Yorker between 1944 and 1994 who specialized in features about unusual medical cases" another comma is needed after 1994.
    • Done. (Though arguable: the second comma is only necessary if he specialized on medical features for other publications in addition to The New Yorker.)—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "The idea of a curmudgeonly lead character was soon added." "Shore traced the concept for the title character to his experience as a patient at a teaching hospital." What's the connection between the two? Did Shore add the idea of the curmudgeonly character or did he come up with the concept in response to someone else's demand for such a character?
    • The teaching hospital experience was the main influence on the character's personality.--Music26/11 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, but that still doesn't make things quite clear. The passive voice in "The idea of a curmudgeonly lead character was soon added" leaves me wondering who added it. "Shore traced the concept for the title character to his experience as a patient at a teaching hospital." seems to imply that the idea came from Shore, but the article leaves this point frustratingly unclear. Did Shore simply respond to someone else's idea for a curmudgeonly character by drawing on his experiences, or was it his idea to have a curmudgeonly character?
        • I have fully addressed this issue now I believe. I have the season 1 DVD and on one of the bonus features called "The Concept" Shore makes clear that he was the one who felt there should be an interesting lead character. So hopefully I have removed the ambiguity here. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Well done. I gave it a little copyedit tweak. DocKino (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "but turned the opportunity down." Any idea why?
    • This is explained in the reference cited: [21]. It could be mentioned why in the article text but it doesn't seem necessary, it doesn't really have that much to do with House. Here is the quote from the reference that explains it:

"Friend and Lerner have been writing as a duo for 13 years. When offered a place on the House writing team before for season one they turned down the offer. “We had just come off of the drama Boston Public.” They felt that House “was so good that it didn’t make sense to be on FOX;” it didn’t fit the network’s typical audience. And they were concerned that the network would cancel it without giving it enough of a chance. Instead, they went to work on LAX, which they thought was a “shoe-in” with Heather Locklear in the lead role (it wasn’t, and was soon cancelled). So they watched House’s season one “from afar,” seeing it really take off by mid-season. They were impressed (and astounded) that the series, as it unfolded, was as good as the pilot. Which, they noted, doesn’t often happen. “They didn’t have to change anything.” When lightning struck a second time and Katie Jacobs again offered the partners a spot on House, they jumped at the opportunity." LonelyMarble (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think that necessarily needs to be in the article. Cool3 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "only Greg Yaitanes has directed as many as 10 episodes." Does this mean he has directed exactly ten episodes or more than 10?
    • Exactly 10.—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "According to Shore, "three different doctors ... check everything we do"." Any idea who the other two are?
    • This quote is simply from the reference cited: [22]. Here is the exact quote: "There are three different doctors who check everything we do and we have a medical consultant on staff all the time," Shore says. "The best thing we can get is our three doctors disagreeing, because as a writer that is the best thing, because you are wide open. If the doctors don't agree that means there is no right answer." Research into the doctors' actual names could be tried, but I doubt the information is readily available, and I don't think it really matters much. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "The son of a doctor, Ran Laurie, he said he felt guilty for "being paid more to become a fake version of my own father."" the sentence switches from "he" to "my" the quote should probably be redone as "fake version of [his] father."
    • Changed my to [his], done. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "As well as the script for House, actor Robert Sean Leonard had received the script for the CBS show Numb3rs." I think this is an odd way of introducing Leonard. Would it be more appropriate to start the sentence with his name?
    • Done.—DCGeist (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "He believed that his House audition was not particularly good, but that his lengthy friendship with Singer helped win him the part of Dr. Wilson." This sentence is also put together oddly, making it appear only incidental that he got the role. I'd suggest something more like "He believed that his House audition was not particularly good, but won the part of Dr. Wilson, a fact he credited at least in part to his lengthy friendship with Singer." I'm not married to that particular wording, but I think something along those lines would be good.
    • The current construction of the sentence is perfectly fine, and more terse than virtually any plausible alternative that conveys the same essential information. (For example, the proposal is six words longer, but conveys no additional information.)—DCGeist (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "ultimately, the decision was made to add three new regular cast members." Any idea why? Also, who made the decision?
    • The reference cited for this information does not contain an online link so I cannot immediately find the answers to your questions. The current reference is: Finn, Natalie (October 4, 2007). "Vatican Decries Golden Compass' Lost Soul". E!. The date of the reference corresponds to the beginning of season 4, so the reference seems to be for this information. Offline references are perfectly acceptable for featured articles so this is not really a problem. Perhaps more information about this specific decision can be found in online sources. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, after some searching, I've come across something rather troubling. That story is available online [23], but it was published in December not October (title and author the same, so I'm fairly sure that it is the same story) and it says absolutely nothing about House. This is a big problem. Cool3 (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I think I know what probably happened. When this reference was first posted it contained a link to a page on the site http://uk.eonline.com/. That link is now dead so someone must have just deleted the url from the reference. This is usually not a good idea as the Internet Archive can retrieve web pages of dead links, however it usually takes at least 6 months. I checked this dead link in the archive and it is not there yet. I think what happens on this E! site is they list a bunch of news stories, so the title of this reference was simply of the first news story perhaps and is thus mislabeled. This reference was initially put in by Music when he did the first major expansion so I'm sure there has just been a mix up over time. I and other editors have been checking all the references to make sure they back up what they are referencing. Thank you for discovering some that were incorrect, I doubt this is a big problem with the article though. LonelyMarble (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I have removed that bogus reference and replaced it with a reference that specifically backs up the fact that they originally were going to cast two new people, but decided on three. To answer your original questions, it was the producers who made the decision, which can already be extrapolated from the current sentence structure. The reference does not specifically say why but I'm sure the answer is probably just what is explained in this reference: [24], which is already referenced in the section. The fact that the producers fell in love with more characters than they thought they would. This can be quoted from Katie Jacobs in the section if you want. But I replaced the reference so this issue is resolved. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Any more info on the style? That section feels a bit short.
    • Searched for it, but couldn't find anything, sorry. Maybe another editor comes across something, but I wouldn't count on it.--Music26/11 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Addressed. I identified a couple more significant visual points in the Jacobs interview and added them to the section.—DCGeist (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I like the additions. Anything else? Cool3 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I've fleshed this out with observations from a couple of critics concerning the special effects. DocKino (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Added technical information on effects from extensive article on same.DocKino (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "The names are shown next to, or superimposed upon, old-fashioned anatomical drawings, X-ray images of the human body or graphic design images of body parts." and " with Morrison's name, but FOX disagreed. Instead, her title card shows an aerial shot of rowers on Princeton University's Lake Carnegie." There seems to be a contradiction here.
    • Addressed.—DCGeist (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The section "Series overview" is rife with the word "usually". Could you replace a few instances with a synonym?
    • Done.—DCGeist (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Diagnoses range from relatively common to very rare diseases." This bit appears to be uncited.
    • Cited.--Music26/11 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • ""Everybody lies", or proclaims during the team's deliberations, "The patient is lying" or "The symptoms never lie"." This is phrased as if these are all three equivalent, but the last one has a totally different meaning, which I believe should be better drawn out in the surrounding text.
    • Done.--Music26/11 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason you don't mention Tritter in the overview? That whole saga would seem highly relevant to the paragraph on Vicodin.
    • The "Series overview" section is meant to explain what can be expected in any single episode, as most episodes of House can stand on their own for viewing purposes, regardless if the viewer is aware of what story arc is going on. Tritter is already fully mentioned in the recurring characters section and works better there in my opinion as he is a story arc. House's hallucinations are also a story arc, but I'm not really sure where a mention of him checking into the psychiatric hospital (which I think should be mentioned) would fit better than the paragraph on Vicodin in the overview, that's why that is mentioned there. LonelyMarble (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree. Adding Tritter to the overview would disrupt the existing structure, which is logical and coherent.—DCGeist (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Alright, I see what you're trying to accomplish there. I think, though, that working along the same lines it would be best to move the stuff on the hallucinations and mental hospital to the recurring characters section under Amber (where some of it is already covered)
          • The problem with moving the mention of House's hallucinations and the psychiatric hospital to the recurring section is two-fold. Firstly House is not a recurring character and it would seem out of place there, whereas Tritter is and fits perfectly there. Secondly, the existing flow right now is House's hallucinations are explained at the end of series overview; in the main characters section one of the results of House's hallucination, he and Cuddy, is mentioned; in the recurring characters section another result of House's hallucinations, Amber, is mentioned. Everything flows and fits perfectly as it is, I don't think anything needs to be changed. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Yes, the current structure makes the most sense and should not be changed. From a copyediting perspective, if I saw the material on the hallucinations and the hospital introduced in the "Recurring characters" subsection, I'd move it right to where it is now. Please leave as is. DocKino (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "As of June 2009, there is no indication that a show featuring Douglas is under development." This is uncited, and in my opinion, borders on original research.
    • Well, this is one of those situations where common sense obliges us to flirt with what seems original research (what it actually represents, of course, is extensive research in search of any indication that a show is in development, the failure to find any, and the common sense conclusion that there is none). Without the sentence, the implication of the paragraph is that such a show is presently under development—an apparently false implication. There is no perfect solution to a case such as this, but the present solution is the one that best serves our readers. I'd oppose any change here.—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I know what you mean, but I still see it as a problem. "No indication" carries an air of great authority. While Google search or LexisNexis searches may demonstrate no indication, perhaps an expert would know something that we don't (unless one of the editors here happens to be a TV producer). Is there anything you could possibly cite this to? Some TV columnist who has commented on the lack of any indication? Cool3 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I just spent another solid chunk of time looking into this. There is simply no sign of anything happening on this and no authoritative source commenting on it since last fall. And I disagree that "'No indication' carries an air of great authority". It is merely and purely descriptive. If we flatly stated something like "Plans for the show have not progressed" that would be an overauthoritative claim. I think we're well within appropriate bounds here given the available information and lack thereof. DocKino (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "The show has been nominated for various Golden Globe Awards" This would seem to imply that it received none. I would recommend adding "and received one". Also, how many total Golden Globe nominations has it received?
    • Rephrasing done.—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • And total nominations added. Fully addressed.—DCGeist (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "For a charity action, American Apparel 100% cotton T-shirts bearing the phrase "Everybody Lies" were sold in limited numbers from April 23 to April 30, 2007." Any idea how many were sold? How much money was raised?
    • The ref doesn't say, info is unavailable.--Music26/11 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • A reference did say they have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the charity, so I have added this information in. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The following links in the citations section appear not to be working: 18, 19, 48, 65, 69, 70, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 102, 103, 104, 105, 110, 111, 113. Addendum, should the page be changed before these are addressed, the number refer to this version.
    • As described above—in response to my initial raising of the matter—that's a problem with the protected cite episode template. Once those in charge of the template resolve the issue, those links will be operable. There's no way to correct the problem on this end. We could eliminate the links entirely, but I think it's best to maintain them in faith that the template problem will be corrected.—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • If you just replace the spaces with underscores (_) the links will work properly. Cool3 (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • You are correct! Thank you. Done.—DCGeist (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "In almost every episode, his investigatory method is to logically eliminate diagnoses as they are proved impossible; Holmes used a similar method." This is cited to the Hartford Courant. The actual article in that paper states the following and only the following: "House (Fox, 9 p.m.). Hugh Laurie is terrific as a bitter, brilliant doctor at a teaching college in Newark, N.J., who loves science but hates patients. With deductive abilities like those of Sherlock Holmes, Dr. House, who walks with a cane, is surrounded by three potential Watsons, who second-guess and follow the brilliant curmudgeon. Though it is marred by some of those useless into-the-bloodstream special effects, it's one of the smartest things on network TV. The main problem is that you'll have to wait nearly until Thanksgiving for this one. Nov. 16." Although it does mention Sherlock Holmes, it makes absolutely no mention of either House or Holmes logically eliminating anything.

• Sorry, sorry, sorry. I misread the deductive powers thing. I'm very very sorry. LonelyMarble found a ref to back it up. Again, my mistake, I'm sorry.--Music26/11 16:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Source 34 is used to support the statement, "The pilot episode was filmed in Canada", the actual story from the Toronto Sun makes absolutely no reference to any such thing, although it does include the statement on the bin Laden tape (which is also cited to it)

• Removed.--Music26/11 16:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Given that these three misrepresentations are the result of looking at just a few of the offline references, I can only assume that there may be other serious errors with the referencing, and I kindly ask other reviewers to help check the other refs. Cool3 (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "The main patient in the pilot episode is named Rebecca Adler, after Irene Adler, a character in the first Holmes short story." is sourced to ref 16, which makes absolutely no mention of either Rebecca or Irene Adler, although there are some interesting comments on the House-Wilson/Holmes-Watson dynamic that might be worth including. Cool3 (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, took the ref directly from the Pilot FA, with your database access you might be able to find a ref that does confirm this.--Music26/11 19:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Cool3 did add a reference to back the Adler statement up, so this is resolved. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "House ultimately selects Dr. Chris Taub (Peter Jacobson), a former plastic surgeon; Dr. Lawrence Kutner (Kal Penn), a sports medicine specialist; and Dr. Remy "Thirteen" Hadley (Olivia Wilde), an internist." This is undoubtedly true, but unsupported by the citation which says only "According to The Hollywood Reporter, Kal Penn, Olivia Wilde and Peter Jacobson will be series regulars for the remainder of this "House" season. " Please supplement with another citation(s) containing the additional information.
    • Necessary supplements added. DocKino (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Ref 124 refers to a story in the Daily Telegraph as having appeared on page N9. According to my sources, the article never appeared in print, but only the online edition. A link is available here.
    • Took care of this. DocKino (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In Ref 133, the USA today story is misidentified. The correct name is "Note to 'House' fans : 'Things will never be the same' on the Fox series" (not drama as currently stated). The story also makes no reference to critics being "surprised" by the teams departure. (the story is available in the free preview here, the rest of the material is actually irrelevant under the subheading of "In other TV news"). The Hartford Courant story also doesn't say anyone was surprised. All that it really says is "'House' fans relax. True, the fourth season ended in May with the cantankerous doctor firing his staff or otherwise seeing it leave, followed by an announcement that many new faces would join the cast of the hit show when it returns this fall on Fox." with most of the rest devoted to news on the next season.Cool3 (talk)
    • And this as well. DocKino (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for focusing in on this issue. I found a couple more cases in the "Critical reception" subsection. With one exception, I'll now vouch for all the sourcing from that section to the end of the article (that is, at the moment, citations 118 through 199 plus the few specific repeat appearances of citations introduced earlier in the article)--I did a lot of cleaning up of the lower sections in the past few weeks. The one exception is this, currently (20:29 EDT, June 17) citation 145: << "2006–07 primetime wrap". The Hollywood Reporter. Nielsen Business Media. May 25, 2007. Retrieved July 4, 2008. (Subscription required) >>. The link is dead. I don't have any question about the data--it has been replicated in many sites that cloned the data from the Hollywood Reporter--but we do need a new authoritative source, unlesss we can verify the offline publication of this data. DocKino (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • • I fixed the problem of the dead link for the Holly Reporter. The problem was the link in the article was going directly to the login page for subscribers, which was causing a problem. I replaced it with the link to the actual article and then the Hollywood Reporter site redirects you to the login page if you are not a subscriber, which solves the problem. This information is no doubt correct as there are plenty of mirrors and using references that require a subscription are perfectly fine, so I think the problem with this reference is resolved. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • All the reference problems identified by Cool3 have been corrected and resolved. All the rest of the questions and problems brought up by Cool3 have been addressed and (I think) resolved. The only thing left to do would be a final confirmation that all the references are correct. DocKino has already done this for a good chunk of the references. As it is right now, it appears all issues on this FAC page have been resolved. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Has anyone conducted such a check yet? It appears that there are only about 100 left to verify, which while it might be a bit painstaking shouldn't take too long. Once someone is ready to vouch for those, I'm prepared to support. Cool3 (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I will go through and check all the online sources for the references in the first part of the article that DocKino hasn't checked. I don't have immediate access to offline sources right now so I can't check those. You appear to have checked most of those already. If there are any others you could check that would be helpful. I can vouch for the two citations that reference the season 1 DVD. I have the DVD and have verified the information being referenced is mentioned and is correct. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Yes, I have verified all of the offline refs except for those to books, and am prepared to vouch for them. Cool3 (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I can now vouch for all the references from the production section except for the last subsection Opening sequence (so currently I have checked references 1 - 62). I have to go for awhile, I only have 4 problems from my check, and there is only 1 reference I wasn't able to access at all: LonelyMarble (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Do you think the reference for this sentence backs it up: The resemblance is evident in House's reliance on psychology in problem-solving, even where it might not seem obviously applicable, and his reluctance to accept cases he finds uninteresting.[25] The first part about psychology even when it is not obvious may be supported by this: "EVERYBODY LIES - House's mantra, based on his cynical yet usually accurate assumption that patients are always hiding something. Like the case of the lady with African sleeping sickness who swore she'd never been to Africa...while neglecting to mention she was cheating on her husband with someone who had been there." The other part isn't directly said but inferred, plus the fact that he only accepts cases he finds interesting doesn't really need a reference anyway. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I added a reference at the end of the sentence for House not accepting cases he finds uninteresting. I also think the other reference backs up the psychology mention in the first part of the sentence, as it gives a good example of when a person's secrets are not always obvious. So this question is resolved. LonelyMarble (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• The only reference I can't vouch for is the one after this line in the casting section: Leonard said that he had some familiarity with the medical profession, because his father-in-law was a doctor. (currently reference 41) The link wouldn't load in my browser, maybe someone else can have more success, that sentence can easily just be deleted if it can't be verified. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I've listened to the interview (the link takes you to an audio file). It's true that his father in law is a doctor, but the interview doesn't really back up what the article says. Here's the quote as best I can transcribe it: "But yea the writing is remarkable; my father in law is a doctor and he's really ... he said you know you guys you know ...we cheat on the time a little bit like when the medicine kicks in or how quickly someone gets better but the medicine and what's wrong with people and the diagnoses are all totally researched and backed up. It's totally remarkable what the writers come up with." The interview also has a few tidbits on the nurse who's there when they film that might be worth including: "Once we're on the set we have a nurse there named Bobbin(?) believe it or not who's great and she you know so far as when someone has to be intubated or given a shot or just stupid stuff she'll help us because we're all idiot actors we don't know what we're doing." (to get to where both of these are said skip to about 2/3 of the way through the interview). Cool3 (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I've cut the sentence about familiarity, given that it is weakly supported at best and not all that pertinent.DocKino (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• The info regarding Hugh's salary was a bit messed up. The reference to support the $100,000 per episode didn't quite do it because the figure was actually in pounds. I reworded the sentences so everything regarding this is resolved, but if anyone wants to research his past salaries some more go for it. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• The locations section of the filming section was a bit messed up. The reference for the line stating shots of UCLA and USC are used for exterior shots of PPTH was not sufficient. The reference was only of one instance that the show shot at USC, I changed the wording to reflect this. The info right now is backed by the references, the only thing that could be done is add in a reference about the exterior shots of PPTH because that is unreferenced at the moment. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I added in a reference for the PPTH aerial shots and also added in the info that the series' setting was because Singer's hometown is Princeton. So everything in this section is referenced and the refences check out. This paragraph has the potential for expansion but as it is now it's fine. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Working my way backwards, I can now vouch for all the citations from "Recurring characters" on down (104–203, at the moment). However, every single one of the sources cited for the occupations of the four eliminated audition finalists was irrelevant and had to be cut. An existing source gives Volakis's occupation, but I couldn't find anything up-to-standard online for Brennan, Cole, or Dobson. If we want to list their occupations, it looks like we'll have to give the appropriate episode cites. Is someone equipped to do that? DocKino (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Good work, looks like we're almost there. As for the occupations, this article form USA Today should be moderately helpful. It confirms Brennan as an epidemiologist. As for Dobson it says "In the last episode, he revealed he is not a physician but had learned by working for 30 years at a medical school," which probably isn't quite good enough and should be supplemented (though it does at least tell us where to look). Unfortunately, it has nothing on Cole's specialty. Cool3 (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for picking up on the Brennan info in the source. I provided an episode cite for Dobson--his background as a medical school admissions officer is unambiguously stated in the show. No good evidence has been found for the claim that Cole is a geneticist. LonelyMarble did a transcript search (as did I) and there is simply no in-universe indication that this is true. No Fox press release, official Fox online statement, or professionally published article supports the claim either. As a result, the "geneticist" claim has been cut. Referencing work now complete for citations 104 on down. DocKino (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Great work. Looks like the only references not double-checked and verified are references 63-103, only 40 more. I intend to do this sometime tomorrow as I should have a good chunk of time to devote to it. Anyone is free to start checking the references left in the meantime, but I intend to finish what's left of the references tomorrow when I have more time and am not as tired as I am right now. This was good that Cool3 brought this issue up. There weren't that many problems but there were enough mistakes and other problems that the article continues to really improve. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
        • OK, I just tackled "Main characters" (so now covering citations 85 on down). I can vouch for everything except one claim and the content of two refs:
        • The claim: "Dr. James Wilson...is the head of the Department of Oncology." There's lots of evidence that he's an oncologist, but I haven't been able to pin down a source for the claim that he's "the head of the Department of Oncology."
          • Wilson is definitely the department head like House. I'll find an episode site for this. I had also noticed Cameron's job description earlier and thought it was possibly a little off because I remember her being described as the "senior attending physician". I think however the way it works is there are a couple senior attendings in the ER and then one of those seniors is also the head. So I think the way you did it with the extra note is the best way. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
            • I added an episode cite for Wilson, 1x07. Cuddy specifically calls House and Wilson "department heads". Wilson being the department head is seen in a lot of episodes, this episode may be the first time in the series it's clearly spelled out though. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
        • The refs: The two offline ones: <<Kochman, David (August 8, 2007). "House The nasty docs tests his new victims...er, staffers". TV Guide. pp. 41–42.>> (currently #95) and <<"Spoiler Alert: House Selects Three Regulars". Virginian-Pilot. October 7, 2007. p. E2.>> (currently #99). DocKino (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• I can vouch for those two refs.--Music26/11 14:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have just gone through the Series overview section and I can vouch for all the references and information there being correct. The only thing is an offline reference to Playboy is cited 4 times and an offline reference to the book by Paul Challen is cited 5 times. The information cited by the offline references is just basic in-universe plot info. But can anyone vouch for the offline references in this section? If so, this section is all set. Also, is there anyone that can vouch for all the references to the Challen book that appear throughout the article? LonelyMarble (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've double-checked almost all the Challen refs via Google Book Search. I'm happy to give them all another pass for final verification. DocKino (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• All Challen refs checked and appropriate edits made.
• One last issue, I have. LonelyMarble, great job expanding and refining the "Opening sequence" subsection. But it now strikes me as weird that we describe the images accompanying the names of four of the six featured actors, but not that of the lead. We need to make clear how Laurie's name is presented. Given that we would then be describing the presentation of six of the seven names featured in the sequence, it would seem odd to omit only Leonard. What do you think about completing the description by mentioning both of them? DocKino (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Terrific job, LM. DocKino (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• I was already working on doing just that before you made the comment here (hence how I added it in 4 minutes later). So we were thinking along the same lines. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• I can vouch for the playboy ref.--Music26/11 16:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• It appears that Music2611's "vouch" for this ref is worthless, a remarkable thing at this point in the process. I tracked down the Playboy interview online--of the three specific claims it has been cited for, it does not support a single one. There is zero discussion of the "pre-credit sequence set outside the hospital, showing events leading up to the onset of the patient's symptom"; there is zero suggestion that the team's attempted treatments "often fail until the patient's condition is critical"; there is zero discussion of House's clinic duty, let alone that his "grudging fulfillment of this duty, or his creative methods of avoiding it, constitute a recurring subplot. And yet it was "vouched" for. Unbelievable. Please tell us why we should put any stock in the vouching for the TV Guide and Virginian-Pilot refs above.
• Luckily, I believe all of the claims relating to sources M2611 has "vouched for" can be covered with other sources. LM, you may be better equipped to do that than I am right now. I'm cutting the Playboy refs and waiting for...what would I trust?...faxes of the other two refs, which appear in the "Main characters" section. This article is in very, very strong shape now--it's unfortunate that we still have to contend with this last...situation. DocKino (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• I found the article online too, however, I own that particular playboy (yes, you can laugh at me for it but that's not the point right now), the printed version contains a "regular house episode", I can scan it if you want (although then I have to find out how the damn machine works). Anyhow, the other two sources can be traced back here (registration required) and here [26]/[27].--Music26/11 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• The other two refs turned out not to be necessary, and referring to the actual episodes actually improved the text of the "Main characters" section. As for the Playboy, maybe we can forego the scan. Can you explain in more detail what you mean when you say it contains a "regular house episode"? And could you give us the quotations upon which the three claims in question are based:
  • Most episodes revolve around the diagnosis of a primary patient and start with a pre-credit sequence set outside the hospital, showing events leading up to the onset of the patient's symptoms.
    • A reference explaining how the "cold open" works to back this sentence up is still needed. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I added an online reference to support this sentence. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • attempts [to diagnose and treat the patient's illness] often fail until the patient's condition is critical.
    • Found an online reference to back this, says they often almost kill the patient. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • His grudging fulfillment of this [walk-in clinic] duty, or his creative methods of avoiding it, constitute a recurring subplot. [I did find support in Challen for this, but the phrasing doesn't make absolutely clear that it is a recurring subplot, so a little more support would be helpful].
    • Same online reference makes it clear this is a "weekly comedic subplot". LonelyMarble (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks. (Music2611, I apologize for overreacting. I should have checked with you to see if there was material in the print version--which, after all, is what you cited--that didn't appear in the online version.) DocKino (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• We've all been working really hard on this article, and looks like we finally may be pretty much "done". I could use a break to read that particular Playboy (just for Hugh Laurie's interview of course). LonelyMarble (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• There are still 3 offline references in the series overview section (currently 74, 75, 78). 74 and 75 are newspapers and Cool3 has said he can vouch for all the offline references except the books. 78 is a book though. Any verification of this reference? LonelyMarble (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• The book's text is accessible on Amazon. I did a word search on "clinic" and looked through the pages where it appeared. While the book (Leah Wilson, House Unauthorized) was useful on a few points, I did not find support for the passage for which it was being cited: "During clinic duty, House confounds patients with unwelcome observations into their personal lives, eccentric prescriptions, and unorthodox treatments. However, after seeming to be inattentive to their complaints, he regularly impresses them with rapid and accurate diagnoses." Maybe you might give it a look over to see if you can find sufficient evidence for that...or we may need to seek out another source...or, of course, reword or trim the passage. DocKino (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Everything in these two sentences can be cited from the pilot episode. I can think of a bunch of examples in other early episodes as well, but I think a pilot cite is good enough. Plus for the second sentence I think I found a pretty good reference showing how he is able to make rapid and accurate diagnoses (while not actually even doing that much). Are there are any other reference problems, I think we may have finally finished. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• I added a couple book refs to the surrounding passages, as well. Yes, I believe the entire article is properly and comprehensively ref'ed now. DocKino (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• As a die-hard fan of the show, I look forward to supporting once these are addressed :). Cool3 (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Images comments:

• File:Robert Sean LeonardCrop.JPG is a flipped and cropped version of File:Robert_Sean_Leonard.jpg. Per WP:MOSIMAGES, "images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines [image placement and facing]".
  • Image has been replaced.--Music26/11 16:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing how File:HouseCastSeason1.jpg adds much to the article. Two of the characters essentially look exactly the same in their free images, and the rest of the characters have their own articles. Considering there is little in the summaries about their appearance, costumes, et al that would warrant the images as subject of commentary, I'd remove the image (basically, analogous to image concerns in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Tritter.)
  • Sorry but I'm not going over this again, the previous FAc was dominated by this discussion and we eventually had more people supporting than opposing the image. If you would like to start this discussion again, please take it elsewhere, else we would have the same problem all over again.--Music26/11 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

All other images appropriately tagged and licensed. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Fuchs is correct that images of persons should not be flipped to meet a placement/facing guideline (or, really, for any other reason).
• As Music points out, the cast photo has been extensively discussed, and a final image selected that best serves our readers within the letter and the intention of our image policy. The ability to visualize the core cast of a TV series is essential information about the show, and goes to the heart of criterion 1b. The fact that there are separate articles on the characters is irrelevant—readers should not be obliged to move around to multiple articles to acquire this basic information about the show in question. House's cane is also referred to multiple times in the article—it and his posture relevant to it constitute significant visual information. Furthermore, the information I have added to the Filming style underscores the visual importance of Laurie's height. While I suppose a police-style lineup image might be ideal, the present image does explicate Laurie's stature relative to the rest of the cast, even with his stoop.—DCGeist (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Then the fair use rationale needs to be expanded; right now it reads as "this illustrates something", which is always a poor reason for anything without elaboration. Also, that reminds me, we need the original location of the image; linking to the raw .jpg is nice, but for source the location it appears is more important. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Quite right. I'll deal with the rationale.—DCGeist (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Done.—DCGeist (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Also want to point out that the image shows House's lack of a white coat compared to the other doctors, which is somewhat mentioned in the conception section. When the reader gets to the characters section they'll see a result of that conversation mentioned. DCGeist did a nice job with the fair-use rationale. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I recropped the image of Leonard without improperly flipping it; uploaded the new crop to Commons; and brought the properly oriented crop into the article.—DCGeist (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry if this screws up your work, but I replaced the image with an image of Edelstein. I think it fits better.--Music26/11 14:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Follow-up: Lonely Marble has substituted a still further improved (and properly oriented) crop.—DCGeist (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• File:Princeton Frist Campus Center back.jpg. The file says it was released under the CC-BY-3.0 license by the author, but the author is not the uploader. The file was uploaded to Commons by Commons user Kyro, but is credited to Jterrace here on en, and there's no indication on the description page that he actually has confirmed the license of the image. While there's about a 99.9% chance that everything is perfectly fine here, I think that in an FA we should have confirmation from Jterrace that he indeed took the picture and has agreed to license it in this fashion. Although Jterrace does not seem to be too active, he has the EMail use function enabled, so that's probably the best way for someone to get in touch with him. Cool3 (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe Commons user Kyro should be contacted about this, he might know Jterrace personally. He seems to be a trusted and established user on Commons. If you think the licensing needs verification this should be brought up on Commons as that site is the one hosting the image and Commons does not host non-free images. If you brought this article up for deletion on Commons I suspect it would kept either by resolving the issue or on good faith of user Kyro. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think I solved the issue. If you look at the history of revisions to the Commons page for the image you can see that the image was originally uploaded to Wikipedia and then deleted after it was moved to Commons. See the original version of the page: [28]. Jterrace I'm assuming uploaded the image to Wikipedia. This can easily be confirmed by an admin by seeing the record of the deleted Wikipedia page for the image or a record of Jterrace's contributions. Jterrace originally posted the file to the Frist Campus Center Wikipedia page: [29]. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry for not bringing this up, but the original copy (en.wp) was uploaded by JTerrace, which is why I didn't bring the issue up. Unfortunately bot migrations to commons often screw up the original info. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Is there anyone really against removing this image. I mean it doesn't really add anything to the article. If the decision is made this image could be placed in the article instead, since filming also takes place there.--Music26/11 13:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm against removing. The shot of Frist Campus Center for the hospital is shown in pretty much every episode and usually more than once. I don't know why you would want to remove a free image of PPTH and substitute it for an image of a building that is only going to be used for season 6. An aerial shot of the campus center would be the most ideal image but I think this free one is still good; perhaps the caption should be more clear that this is what PPTH looks like. LonelyMarble (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wait, does this mean that the above discussion is solved? Great work on the lead thing below by the way.--Music26/11 14:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, the problem was the image says the author is Jterrace but the user who uploaded it to Commons is Kyro. The image was originally uploaded to Wikipedia by Jterrace, so the original uploader and author are the same. This information just got a little lost when the image was transferred to Commons. David Fuchs is an admin so he can see the deleted records and he confirmed this. So everything is fine with this image, the license is correct. LonelyMarble (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• My bad.--Music26/11 18:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Weak. Maybe good enough to be a Featured Article but I think it could be better. Intro too long. Please see comments on the House talk page for more details. (I'll elaborate later, I've written this comment more than once, previewed it, checked details but not actually submitted it. -- Horkana (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

To quickly address my concerns with more brevity than I did on the talk page: Sherlock Holmes references are interesting but it is a comparison best explained in the main article, the mention in the lead is too long. The production details about who came up with what aspects of the show are interesting but the introduction should not go into detail behond mentioning David Shore who is listed in the credits as the producer. House is critically acclaimed and highly rated, no doubts there but isn't one example enough for the introduction if an example even needs to be provided in the lead. -- Horkana (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Your interpretations of WP:Lead section and WP:Article length are not correct. First of all, the most important thing to evaluate in regards to article length is readable prose. That article size number that you see in the history page or when you edit a page does not mean much because it includes all the references and other things that are not a part of readable prose. The current readable prose size of this article is about ~40 KB (read WP:Article length for a definition of readable prose). The guideline at WP:Article length states:

Readable prose size What to do

> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided

> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)

≥ 40 KB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)

< 40 KB Length alone does not justify division

The most important thing to note here is that the only thing that matters is readable prose and this article's readable prose size is about 40 KB, therefore the length of this article is pretty much perfect and is perfectly within limits to expand with more prose. The current total article size of House right now is 109 KB, but that number does not really matter. This article has almost 200 references, that is why the total article size is so large. Finally, the guideline at WP:Lead section states that an article with >32 KB of readable prose should have a lead section of 3 to 4 paragraphs. This article has 3 paragraphs that summarize all the major points of the article very well. The lead is a perfect length. I suggest you look at other featured articles to get an idea of how long leads should be, and also keep in mind that the most important thing when evaluating an article's size is readable prose. LonelyMarble (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I did a more accurate assessment of readable prose size and I'd say the current number is 37 KB. So more expansion with any new useful information, or for sections that seem a little short, or in the future for more information about the new seasons, is perfectly fine. The readable prose size is not that large. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I may have been hasty about the article length, admittedly there is a lot to cover. However the introduction could keep it short and sweet and stick to introducing the article and leave the rest to be explained later. You interpret a 3-4 paragraph length introduction like a target rather than an upper limit, I disagree. There is a temptation to write a long "summary" as the introduction. The fact the writers have made the deliberate to connections between House and Holmes can be made in a single short sentence, with the examples and references provided in the article. Again the fact that House has been critically praised can be expressed succinctly. Many editors seem okay with having articles with introductions the size of a small article, the featured articles I've seen seem to back that up. I would point you to The West Wing as an example of a good introduction and it is for a television series that ran longer then house and could potentially have a much longer introduction (but it doesn't need more to just introduce the article). There are many editors in love with their own words and who do not want to keep introductions short, even going forcing thing to grouping together things which don't belong in order to keep the paragraph count down. In the House article for example the not about House having run for 5 seasons and being renewed for a 6th is logically separate from the text before it and would benefit from being spaced further apart and not stuck so much on the proceeding text. It's only a weak oppose, this article will be no less sprawling than the many other articles which have been deemed adequate for featured article status. -- Horkana (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I would venture to guess if the lead was shortened to the length you want there would be many editors who would not support it as a featured article until the lead was expanded. The lead of this article is perfectly within featured article criteria and Wikipedia guidelines. The lead is not just an "introduction". It introduces the article by summarizing all the major points of the article so that the lead can stand alone on its own, so readers will have a basic knowledge of the topic. That is why the length of the lead directly depends on the length of the article. This article is sufficiently long enough to warrant a lead of the length it currently has. Regarding The West Wing, it is not a featured article and its lead is not even that well organized. Most people would probably say The West Wing's lead should even be expanded a bit. You either have an unusual interpretation of WP:Lead section or you are not reading that guideline carefully enough. If you simply have a different opinion and interpretation, there's not much else to say here. You have the right to oppose, but I don't know what the point of your oppose is except that you disagree with core Wikipedia style guidelines, which is a problem you should take up elsewhere, not here. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

To further address specific things you mentioned, Sherlock Holmes comparisons is mentioned because there is a full long section on the comparison. Also the Holmes mention doubles in usefulness because it also lets the reader know some key facts about the character of House. The fact that House has been critically praised is currently expressed succinctly, the reception paragraph in The West Wing is longer than this article's. Finally the mention of the show running for 5 seasons does not need its own paragraph and one sentence paragraphs are strongly discouraged for good reason. The sentence flows fine in that paragraph as the show's ratings specific to its seasons is mentioned earlier. If there is a big section about a topic in an article, it is usually warranted a sentence in the lead. That is how lead sections work. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: Amazing work. The episode refs don't seem to have directors in it, which I would include, as well, TIME magazine recently reported House as being the most popular TV show due to it's ratings, which I don't see mentioned. Other than that, very good. The Flash ^{talk} 22:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• I added the directors for all the episode references, so that is done. As for being the most popular TV show, it is mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead, and in the Distribution section, that House was the most-watched program of 2008 in the world. House's specific ratings in the U.S. has its own subsection, and ratings in other countries are included in the Distribution section. So I'm not exactly sure what information you think is missing, but if you have a link to the Time magazine article you are referring to, any relevant information from it can be incorporated. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Flash appears to be referring to the "Pop Chart" in the current issue of Time. It's a compendium of pop culture factoids with one-liner joking commentary; the two sentences on House don't convey any worthwhile information that isn't already better articulated and sourced in our article. It's nothing that needs to be cited. DocKino (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. Great job LonelyMarble, DocKino and Music, and everyone else who contributed. With the resolution of the referencing problems, I think this is there. Cool3 (talk) 19:13, 25 June 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 22:48, 27 June 2009 [30].

---

Cheadle Hulme

Nominator(s): Majorly talk 02:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... it has pretty much been my baby for the past few months. It was made a GA at the beginning of May, and it has had a very detailed peer review. It's about as comprehensive a source as you can get on the town (or village, not sure which it is) anywhere really. As my history teacher used to say, I literally squeezed every source like a lemon to ensure it was as comprehensive as possible. It was even more detailed before, but this has been cut down significantly. Hopefully the prose is up to scratch, as that was the article's weakest point. I'd like to credit people from WP:GM who have been very helpful to me, giving me advice on all sorts of things. They know who they are - you are very much appreciated. Thanks for your comments, Majorly talk 02:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments from Ceranthor (talk · contribs)
• The article looks pretty good, not yet sure if its FA status but with help from Malleus and Nev1...
  • Evidence of Bronze Age, Roman, and Anglo-Saxon activity has been discovered locally. - Like what? Just because you are summarizing doesn't mean you can leave out major details such as this. :)

• Added examples. Majorly talk 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Is possible to get a more recent consensus number? Excuse me if England performs it like the US, every ten years.

• Sadly not really possible. As in the US, the UK has a census every ten years. I'll be sure to update in 2011 :) PS I think the wikiculture has affected you when you typo census as "consensus" :) Majorly talk 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Valued at £20 - It would be really, really cool if you could use a source to find how much this cost has inflated.

• Could be difficult. Majorly talk 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Template:Inflation only goes back as far as 1264, and unfortunately I don't know of any reliable estimates for how much this would be today. Nev1 (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Danyers was rewarded for his efforts in the crusades through an annual payment from the king of 40 marks, as well as the gift of Lyme Hall. - In the Crusades article, the titular name is capitalized, it should be here, too.

• Fixed. Majorly talk 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • For many years Cheadle Hulme was rural countryside,[49] consisting of woods, open land, and farms. - I think made up of would be a better word choice than consisting, it seems to fit better, IMO.

• Changed. Majorly talk 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Link corn mill.

• Done. Majorly talk 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Depending on how fast you complete these, I have a couple more concerns before I support. ceranthor 13:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Turns out there weren't any actionable concerns, so I think this is ready. ceranthor 19:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comments -
• Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return (Specifically I noted UKBMD.org.uk and SMBC)

• Done - I changed UKBMD.org.uk to GENUKI (which is always referred to as such). Majorly talk 21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 31 (Met Office ..) is lacking a last access date.

• Fixed. Majorly talk 21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Decide and stick with one: either Stockport MBC (and explain it), SMBC (and explain it first usage) or Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council...

• Done, I opted for the last one. Majorly talk 21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.

• Done. Majorly talk 21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.filmreference.com/film/55/Tim-McInnerny.html
    • I'm not sure what makes it unreliable - however the only other source that wasn't a copy of IMDB or Wikipedia seems to be this, which is published by Newsquest. I don't know if it would be more appropriate. Majorly talk 21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I couldn't find anything on their site about their editorial processes, etc. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Me neither. This source is probably better. Majorly talk 22:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Definitely. I'll mark this resolved and you can change out the refs. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • http://shed-insider.net/wiki/index.php?title=WR_Series_1_Press_Pack_Lauren_Drummond_Interview

• Hmm, I know it's an unofficial website, but I don't know why they'd fake an interview they had with her. Otherwise I can't find any other sources (other than one hosted on freewebs) of this fact. Majorly talk 21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. A lot will depend on what's sourced to it (and since this is basically not something that's negative I'm assuming, it probalby is bearable.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've decided to remove it. It is supposed to just be a selection, and not an exhaustive list anyway. Majorly talk 17:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.whydelilah.co.uk/

• It looks like a fan site, and I can't find any other reliable sources for him. I'll remove him from the list. Majorly talk 21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support with comments (none dealbreaking, but "weak" unless/until #3 is resolved)

1. The lead photo (of the road) is a bit "meh". There's nothing particularly distinctive about this road; would it make more sense to have either an "iconic" building, or something typical of the area? (See Altrincham, Sheerness or Westgate-on-Sea for the kind of things I mean.) Remember, most readers will never have heard of CH and their first reaction will be "It's got a road and a tree? So what?". I'd suggest this one of yours from Flickr – I'm sure Durova & co at WP:GL could "blueify" the washed-out sky – or this one looks quite scenic and less it's-grim-up-north.

   Thanks for the support. I have to agree with you, I really don't like the main picture. However, it really does represent the area quite well. The pic of Bramall Hall is all very well - but Bramall Hall is more connected with Bramhall than Cheadle Hulme. And the viaduct is a little out of the way of the main centre. The fact is, the pic there now represents the "district centre" of Cheadle Hulme. I could go out and take a better pic - in fact I believe I have quite a few pics of the area. But, Station Road is really the main part of Cheadle Hulme. How about I get one of the two railway bridges? They surely define it quite well. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Scratch that, the bridges are ugly as sin. The problem here is it's such a large and varied area, there's not one thing that would represent it well. Would a montage be appropriate? Majorly talk 18:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   How about "typical houses" or "parade of shops", or something like that? Even "ugly tower blocks" can work quite well – or if there's a hill or a tall building nearby, a view of the area can be quite good. Remember, the lead image is explicitly exempt from the MOSIMAGE Police's rulings on forced image widths, as long as you don't go over 300px in width, so you can get away with images that would be unusable at the low thumbnail size. – iridescent 18:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Done. I went for a pic of the railway viaduct in the end, though not the one on flickr. Majorly talk 22:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

2. The bit about "The modern-day Cheadle and Marple Sixth Form College" sits a bit oddly in "Early history" – it would probably make more sense in "Education", with at most a footnote in the Early history section.

   Yes, I agree. I'll get moving it. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Done. Majorly talk 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

3. My usual post on urban geography articles; what was the impact on the area of the 19th century transport revolution? You mention urban growth in one section, and the railways in another, but in an urban-industrial area like modern Manchester the two are intimately connected (in the Manchester/Liverpool conurbation this phenomenon is particularly apparent – even now, the built-up areas follow the routes of often long-closed railway lines and canals). Was the rapid growth implied in the Modern history section a result of the 1842 station making CH a commuter town, or that the opening of a station meant that mills opened in CH itself and people moved there to work in them? You briefly touch on this in the "Economy" section, but only briefly – the history of the massive social, geographic and economic change in 19th century Britain is the history of transport (from railway-induced industrialisation, to the steam-powered gunboat, to cheap international bulk-shipping).

   I'll see to work on this. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Done. I've expanded this slightly, but there isn't all that much to go off when it comes to sources. The early 20th century population boost was due to people moving from Manchester to live in the area, with the car being more popular it was easier than ever to commute to work that way. It had little to do with the railway as such. The effect from 1845, when the current station opened is, I think, explained in the article sufficiently. Majorly talk 19:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

4. "Anciently" is a bit of an odd word. Would "formerly" or "historically" be usable?

   Yes, I'll change it to historically. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Changed. Majorly talk 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

5. "A corn mill, which collapsed during the First World War" – is this expandable? And was the collapse linked to the war (either direct bombing or lack of maintenance with workers off fighting) – if not, it might be better to just say "in 1915" (or whenever).

   Hmm, I don't think there was anything else from the source I used. I expect it collapsed from lack of maintenance, but I'm not sure. I'll see if rewording it is better. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   I reworded it slightly. Majorly talk 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

6. The transport section should probably give the travelling time to Manchester and at least a rough train frequency, to give non-Mancs some sense of CH's degree of isolation from the rest of Manchester; "trains run every 20 minutes" would make it clear that it's not an isolated outpost. Since there's no value judgement involved, I'd consider a timetable to be a RS for these purposes.

   Well, this is given in more detail in the railway station article, but I'll add something. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Done. Majorly talk 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

7. "There are restaurants throughout the area that sell food in styles from all over the world, including Indian, Chinese, and Italian" could be describing pretty much any town center in Europe or North America. Anything particularly distinctive or unusual (award winners, first-in-the-northwest, waiters all dress as Elvis and sing while you eat, etc). Not saying this shouldn't be mentioned, but it just seems a bit of a so-what? way to end a section.

   It is a bit vague, and I don't believe there is anything particularly special (some famous people have eaten in the Chinese restaurants that I know of, but nothing really remarkable). Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Rearranged. Majorly talk 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

8. I've no idea if it was or not, but if it was bombed in either war or subject to any significant IRA bombings, that probably warrants a mention.

   I don't think it was, not a single source I have mentions a bombing. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   I'll have to leave this one as "not done", but it's not really actionable. Majorly talk 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

9. The separation of the "Notable residents" section into "Notable talented people" and "Notable people" reads quite oddly. I can kind of see why you've done it this way – to keep the Big Brother contestant separate from the Great Artists – but it's an arbitrary line (that Julian Turner is "talented" but Felicity Peake wasn't is surely debatable).

   I'll see what I can do with this. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Well, I merged them. It's more like one long sentence now. I don't know if that's worse or better than before. Majorly talk 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As I say, none are dealbreakers worth opposing over, but I think the transport history thing in particular could do with a polishing up. – iridescent 18:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I'll get working on them. Majorly talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I could probably list a few dozen examples of minor MoS breaches and redundant words, but on the whole I think it's ready. FA by no means equates to perfection. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please do list them, or fix them. Better to be better than worse. Majorly talk 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I made a couple fixes, but everything else seems to have been resolved already.

• Images look fine as far as I can tell. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Before this FAC I gave the article a run through. The article was (and of course still is) comprehensive and my only concern was some minor copyediting which was addressed very well by a peer review from Finetooth (talk · contribs). I would have supported the article at the start of its FAC and after further tweaks its even easier for me to declare my support. Nev1 (talk) 15:44, 21 June 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 22:48, 27 June 2009 [31].

---

2008 Monaco Grand Prix

Nominator(s): Apterygial 00:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Another of the 2008 race reports. Special thanks go to AlexJ for his peer review and Midgrid and Malleus Fatuorum for their respective copy edits. Fire away! Apterygial 00:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Don't you mean "Gentlemen, start your engines"? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd like to think the engines were already started, tyre warmers off, etc. ;) Apterygial 00:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Note the link checker tool is showing a dead link, but it worked when I clicked through) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why are websites listed in the sources in italics? See WP:ITALICS, they are used for periodicals, journals, newspapers. If those websites represent hard print sources, the name should be used; otherwise, they shouldn't be italicized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Apterygial 00:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Just a minor point, but there are valid citation guides out there that use italics for titles (For example the Modern Humanities Research Association, a standard in many UK Universities) --Narson ~ Talk • 11:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments –
• "at the Circuit de Monaco, the sixth race of the 2008 Formula One season." The last part doesn't fit in well with the sentence as a whole. I recommend structuring it like 1995 European Grand Prix, another Grand Prix page currently at FAC. A similar change is needed later in the article.
• "was won by the season's eventual Driver's Champions Lewis Hamilton for the McLaren team." Commas before and after name?
• "with 12 races of the seasons remaining." → "with 12 races remaining in the season." Wonder if the last three words could be dropped.
  • This one wasn't changed. Do you want to leave it? Giants2008 (17-14) 00:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah, I didn't notice this one. I think it is probably worth keeping it there for clarity's sake. I'm not really big on it, so I'll remove it if you feel it's necessary. Apterygial 00:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Hyphens for "five place" and "second fastest"?
• "with only Piquet starting the race on the extreme wet." One of these awkward "with" and -ing structures. Try "; only Piquet started the race on the extreme wet."
• "but the damage to Sutil's rear suspension forced him to the pits and retirement." Eliminate a coule words and there would be "forced him to retirement." Needs a tweak.
• "resulting in his pass on Massa. Massa...". Please structure this so Massa's name is not used consecutively.
  • Found another one like this: "and he emerged 13 seconds ahead of Massa. Massa's...". Giants2008 (17-14) 00:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Apterygial 00:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• "three-times" → "three-time".
• References 9 and 10 are identical and can be combined.
• The Times Online publisher needs italics. Also, make all autosport.com references into Autosport. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reply. All done except for "second-fastest", which I do not think would be correct in the sentence: "Hamilton managed second fastest, ahead of Räikkönen, Rosberg, Kubica and Massa" as it is not being used as an adjective. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reference 10 should have been another Autosport article (I must have copied it and not changed the details), so I've fixed it. Apterygial 22:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Nothing about qualifying in the lead.
  • I felt that since qualifying is only there to determine grid positions, you might as well just say what grid position they started at when you describe the race. Seems fairly normal in F1 articles. The race is the important part, after all. Apterygial 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think it shouldbe mention though. BUC (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • What would you suggest? I've said Massa had pole and Hamilton started from third and passed Räikkönen for the lead... I can't see what more from qualifying would be relevant without becoming superfluous. Apterygial 06:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• "Felipe Massa was second with 28 points. McLaren driver Lewis Hamilton was third, also on 28 points" so why wasn't Hamilton joint second?
  • The rules for ties are described here. Might be helpful to add a short bit explaining that he was third because of Massa's higher average finishing position or whatever though, I suppose. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Apterygial 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Image captions need punctuation.
  • Image captions should be punctuated according to the Manual of Style, which they are. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • They need full stops.
      • Not if they are only sentence fragments, as outlined in the part of the MOS Malleus linked to. Apterygial 06:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Why the image of Räikkönen in the "Background" section?
  • There were no decent pictures of him during the race, and I thought it would be good to see what he looks like. He's featured talking in the background section.
    • Give it a caption to justify this. BUC (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. Apterygial 06:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• "deployed on lap 62 after Rosberg crashed at Piscine" comma after 62
  • Don't agree that the comma is even desirable, much less necessary. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think it's necessary. BUC (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • It isn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• With the Classification tables, does the ref need to be part of the table on it's own row. I think it looks a bit odd.
  • That was the best we could come up with, and it is a lot better than having it at every stat or like this, which are the next best options. Apterygial 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

BUC (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support, this looks good. I made several fixes that more subjective, so feel free to revert me. For example, you have a slight penchant for anthropomorphisms ("Sunday morning saw...") that usually don't belong in professional prose. Good work. I am particularly pleased to see some of the things explained (like the confusing fuel situation after qualifying) that previously confounded me when I read race articles. It's good to see WikiProjects apparently absorbing feedback from past FACs and applying it to other articles they bring here. --Laser brain (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. As Apterygial said in his/her nomination statement, I did some copyediting on this article, but there really wasn't that much to do, just a bit of tidying up. Like Laser brain, I was impressed at the efforts taken to explain the more arcane aspects of formula one racing, and I think this article deserves to be promoted. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support – I found this to be a great read, and the writing does seem superior to previous Grand Prix FAs. Jargon, a concern in past FACs, has been handled well, and the copy-editing helped a great deal. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Apterygial 01:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review: images are appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments: per

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Accompany flags with country names, "When a flag icon is used for the first time in a list or table, it needs to appear adjacent to its respective country (or province, etc.) name, ..." and
• #Country can sometimes be omitted when flag re-used, "The country name may be omitted if a flag appears with its country name earlier in a list or table. When a flag icon is needed more than once, the flag-and-name template, for example {{flag|Japan}}, or its shorter variant {{flag|JPN}} should be used first, but may be reduced to {{flagicon|JPN}} in subsequent uses."

Please do so for the Classification section. Jappalang (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do this without contravening WP:F1 guidelines, used in almost 1000 articles. Is there any chance that these guidelines could overrule the MoS here? Note that I've started a conversation about it here. Apterygial 08:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There is an example given on the MOS page which points us to List of WPA World Nine-ball Champions. This example appears to use them in the style similar to the F1 tables. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Nine-ball is using what the MOS states: name the country next to the flag (although it is using it throughout instead of the first list). This F1 article is simply printing the flags without naming the country. Jappalang (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't, not by my reading. It uses flag locations in the location table but with no regard to if that is the first use of the flag and not all flags present in the table are present in the location column (Canadian for example, which appears only as a flag icon). I'm one of the first to say that F1 articles overuse flags but when conveying a drivers nationality in a succint fashion in tables it can be useful. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your point and made further investigations. Nine-ball was put it into MOSFLAG by SMcCandlish at 13:42, 14 September 2007, [32] when the article looked like this. Basically, nobody checked later to see if the article has changed (and deviated from the MOSFLAG). Regardless, the F1 list here does not have multiple instances of flags spread across columns to spur such issues, does it? One flag per row in each table; only the first table would need {{flag}}, the second could do with {{flagicon}}. Jappalang (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I just can't see it working. They are driving under a British or German flag, but not for Germany. If that follows? 'UK Jenson Button' seems odd. Would a legend be appropiate somewhere in the table section? Though all this does seem unnecessary in that we appear to be assuming that our readers are unaware of common flags (They can acctually look up those flags on the wiki if they want!), all a debate for MOS:FLAGS however. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

←I've removed the flags, so they don't get in the way of this FAC, and in the meantime at WT:F1 we'll keep discussing a way which fulfils the MoS. The flags aren't important enough that they need to be there, after all. Apterygial 00:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments struck, continuing discussion at WT:F1 in the thread mentioned above. Jappalang (talk) 03:37, 22 June 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 22:48, 27 June 2009 [33].

---

Military history of Australia during World War II

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

A large number of editors and I have been working on this article for just over three years, and I think that it may now be FA standard. The article was assessed as a GA on 22 January and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review on 26 January and has been improved further since then. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting article Well I did some random copyediting and have learnt a lot so far from the bits I tweaked. I thought that the last section was very interesting, ewspecially the last para about how it changed social roles. I think this definitely needs expanding because the way it's written sems to imply that the effects of the war last for a generation or so. Also because the section is relatively subjective I think it would be better to have a wider range of sources and ideas about the effects of WWII on society, especially elaborating on the indept foreign policy. I assume mass immigration was encouraged because of the worry that war depletes so much but I am not sure YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. As the article is primarily about the military aspects of Australia's involvement in the war, I've tried to keep that material to a minimum as it's at the margins of the article's scope. It belongs somewhere on Wikipedia (History of Australia since 1945 perhaps?), but I'm not sure if this is the most appropriate article. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• I'm sure we've discussed www.uboat.net before, but I can't find it on my cheatsheet. Someone refresh my memory if it's reliable?
• Minor quibble - current ref 179 (HMAS HObart..) says "Sea-Power Centre" as the publisher, but certainly appears it's the Royal Australian Navy when I click on the link.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks for those comments. www.uboat.net was used as a source for FA SM U-66 (promoted to FA in March 2009) and I'm pretty sure that I've seen it used in other FAs and A class articles. I've asked User:Bellhalla for comments on the site's reliability. I've updated the publisher details for ref 179 - it used to be on the Sea Power Centre part of the RAN website, but moved into the main part of the website when it was redeveloped a few months ago - great work spotting this! Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm sure Bellhalla will fill in my faulty memory. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
      • As mentioned above, Nick asked me to comment on the reliability of Uboat.net. Some recently published books that use Uboat.net as a non-trivial source are:
        • Atkinson, Rick (2002). An Army at Dawn: The War in North Africa, 1942–1943 (1st ed.). New York: Henry Holt & Co. ISBN 9780805062885. OCLC 49383747.
        • Conley, Tom (2007). Cartographic Cinema. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 9780816643578. OCLC 73501932.
        • Lecane, Philip (2005). Torpedoed!: the R.M.S. Leinster Disaster. Penzance, Cornwall: Periscope. ISBN 1904381308. OCLC 74335239.
        • Treadwell, Theodore R. (2000). Splinter Fleet: The Wooden Subchasers of World War II. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1557508178. OCLC 43706924.
        • Whitlock, Flint; Smith, Ron (2007). The Depths of Courage: American Submariners at War with Japan, 1941-1945 (1st ed.). New York: Berkley Caliber. ISBN 9780425217436. OCLC 77503911.
        • Wise, James E.; Baron, Scott (2004). Soldiers Lost at Sea: A Chronicle of Troopship Disasters. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1591149665. OCLC 52182511.
        • Zuehlke, Mark (2008). Operation Husky: The Canadian Invasion of Sicily, July 10–August 7, 1943. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre. ISBN 9781553653240. OCLC 245556470.
      • — Bellhalla (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Got it and added to the cheatsheet. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. No issues that I could find. Great article. Cla68 (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Still a bit of cleaning up is possible in the prose.
• Why pipe to "Nazi Germany" with just "Germany", when most people will avoid a pure country link? I'd use both words. I wonder the same about "Europe", "North Africa", etc—can they be neatly linked without piping, so the reader might be attracted more to the specificity of the links? Unsure.
  • Done
• A succession of "Australia" and "Australian(s)" in the lead. The term could be rationed. I'll try in the lead, if you could check through the rest of the article.
  • Reduced a bit in the lead
• "led to the development of a larger peacetime military and began the process with which Australia shifted the focus of its foreign policy to closer alignment with the United States rather than Britain." Are there good refs futher down for these major claims? This one, too: " The effects of the war also fostered the development of a more diverse and cosmopolitan Australian society." Maybe ... I'm being lazy in not scrutinising further.
  • That's cited in the 'Defence of Australia' section and the last section of the article
• On the whole, you might consider using a few more commas. Take this sentence: " The Government's decision to immediately enter the war was primarily made on the grounds that Australia's interests were inextricably linked to those of Britain and that a British defeat would destroy the system of imperial defence which Australia relied upon for security against Japan." Try on after "Britain". My thinking is that three things encourage the use of optional commas: (1) a formal register, (2) a longish sentence, and (3) not many commas in the vicinity. In particular, commas can be used after a sentence-intial prepositional/adverbial phrase. ("In early 1944, the ...", "At the time war was declared, the Australian armed forces were ..."). Tony (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll have a look at this; I tend to think that commas are over-used in Wikipedia articles
• PS I'm assuming that your references, the ones for major claims (and there are plenty) are squeaky clean, academically right up there. Are any refs to publications from within the military, rather than to independent scholarly researchers? Tony (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yep - the main sources are the Australian official history of the war (which was funded by the Government but the historians were granted total freedom and almost unlimited access to records and remains the key source on Australia's role in the war) and the other standard works on the war - all the sources are highly reliable and they could be used without fear in university essays and the like. Only two of the references were published by the military, and they're articles written by the highly regarded historians David Horner and Peter Stanley who are not employed by the military (Horner used to be in the Army, but left before becoming a historian and Stanley has never served in the military as far as I'm aware). Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Shouldn't it say how many casualties there were in the lead? --Thanks, Hadseys 08:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The number of Australians killed and wounded is in the last sentance of the first paragraph. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose to a singular but serious image licensing issue:

• File:Battle of Greece - 1941.png: base maps (File:Battle of Greece WWII map-fr.png and its predecessor) are released under GFDL/CC-2.5-SA. That means subsequent derivative works must be released under GFDL or CC-SA compatible licenses. Public domain is not acceptable (attribution is lost)! As licensing is personal intent, the uploader (User:Raymond Palmer) should be the one to correct it (or face deletion of improperly licensed image). However, his account is now "closed", so I think we must get some admins proficient in image-licensing to resolve this.

Otherwise, all other Images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks for that. As the timeframe for fixing up the image is uncertain at best and it's of limited value to this article given that it's only relevant to a few weeks of the war, I've removed it from the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • No problems, I have nominated that map for deletion; perhaps the Commons admins can resolve its issues. Jappalang (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Commons admins have decided that they are empowered to correct the license. Jappalang (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - two ISBN's are only nine digits long when they should be 10 or 13; I've marked them with hidden comments. Could you check them? Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Done - thanks for your excellent copy edits too. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Just tweaked a few minor things, very in depth and interesting article. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 05:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment References 57, 64, 76, 113, 140, and 157 need page numbers. Mm40 (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Those are all online references which are only available in HTML format, so they don't have any pages. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 24 June 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 22:48, 27 June 2009 [34].

---

Hippocampus

Nominator(s): Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is an essential neuroscience article, has passed a thorough GA review, and appears to be ready. Note that the article uses the short-cite-plus-long-reflist format. I'm open to switching to inline citations if the article passes, but I find it very difficult to work actively with text that is cluttered by ref-cruft, so would prefer to leave this until the article is nearly stable. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How about a section on history?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There is some information about the history scattered through the article (mainly in the Functions section), and I'm not aware of a lot more that could be said. Looie496 (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you have seen this book it is in the further reading section [[35]] but page 9 discusses the history at some length. O'Keefe, John; Andersen, Per; Morris, Richard; David Amaral; Tim Bliss (2007). The hippocampus book. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-510027-1. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've read that chapter, thanks, but it seems to me that a separate History section would mainly end up repeating things that are already in the article. If you could make suggestions about specific points that would belong in such a section, it would be helpful. Looie496 (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I took the liberty of fixing a few small typos in the refs) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments A number of small things.
  • There needs to be mention that Julius Caesar Aranzi named the hippocampus the hippocampus.

Done, in lead.

• • A few words about its relationship to the parahippocampus.

Done, I've added a short paragraph at the end of the Anatomy section.

• • Hippocampus played an important role that needs to be mentioned (to give historical perspective--this is an encylopedia) in the debate between Owen and Huxley over Darwin’s Origin of the species. This debate even got into Charles Kingsley's the Water Babies.

I'm totally unfamiliar with this -- I'll see what I can find out. If you would like to contribute some material here, it might be helpful. Looie496 (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• • A mention of its average size in humans 3 -3.5 cc on each side compared to 320-420 for cerebral gray matter might also be useful.Male-specific Volume Expansion of the Human Hippocampus during Adolescence.

Done, I added this info to the first paragraph of the Evolution section, where it flows naturally. It could perhaps be worked into the Anatomy section instead if that would be better. Looie496 (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I would not so quickly reject the idea that the hippocampus has no link with olfaction-- see Vanderwolf's hippocampus as an olfacto-motor mechanism: were the classical anatomists right after all PMID 11718883 .

The current text doesn't say the hippocampus as no link with olfaction, it says "There continues to be some interest in hippocampal olfactory responses, particularly the role of the hippocampus in memory for odors, but few people believe today that olfaction is a primary function of the hippocampus.". Vanderwolf, who is quite elderly now, is one of the few. I don't see a need to change the wording here, but I'll add a cite of your source. Looie496 (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• • The stress section should mention that the hippocampus has a particularly high concentration of Mineralocorticoid receptor which is one of the reasons it is so affected. Also its vulnerability to excitotoxins.

Partly done. I changed the previous term, adrenal steroid receptors, to mineralocorticoid receptors as you suggest, which I believe is more correct. I'm not aware of evidence relating excitotoxins to stress, though. Looie496 (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• • It may be a bit quirky but it is interesting to note that one interesting example of vulnerability of the hippocampus to hypoxia is that it is the first part of the brain to be affected by hanging see The neuropsychological sequelae of attempted hanging PMID 1880518

My sense is that this is too quirky to belong, but I'm open to further discussion. Looie496 (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a shame there is no Wikipedia word processor which would allow insertion of references that could be shifted between hidden and visible.--LittleHow (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be helpful. A Village Pump proposal might be in order, although it probably wouldn't go anywhere. Looie496 (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• CommentSupport I've only read the lead and the first section so far. Very readable to a lay reader, well done. A few suggestions:

• Lead: I don't believe it proven that epilepsy can cause damage in the hippocampus in humans. It can certainly result from an already damaged hippocampus, as the body text indicates. Your source (PMID 15771000) says "temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) with hippocampal sclerosis is probably the single most common human epilepsy, and the one most intensely studied." This is stronger than the "often" in the body text, and may be a more pertinent fact for the lead than the idea that epilepsy may cause hippocampal damage.

Hmm. I guess there is a subtle issue here—does TLE cause hippocampal damage, or does some factor X cause both TLE and hippocampal damage? In practice if there is some factor X that causes TLE, most people wouldn't distinguish between factor X and TLE, I think. If you would like to take a shot at changing the wording here, I would be interested in seeing it. Looie496 (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Functions: "neural plasticity" is mentioned without enough information/context for the reader to work out what it means and why this is relevant to memory. Could you mention the decade(s) that HM was studied so we know where this fits into history.

I changes "neural plasticity" to "activity-driven changes in synaptic connections"; does that help? Regarding H.M., he was studied almost continuously from surgery in 1957 to death in 2008—since both date are already in the paragraph, it seems like it would be redundant to restate them, but I'm open to suggestions on how to do it. Looie496 (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Lead & spacial memory: the term "action potential" is opaque to the general reader. Can we find an accurate but lay phrase with with to explain this important neuro jargon.

I'm afraid I have to resist this one. A reader who doesn't know what an action potential is, is not really going to understand this even if we use another term such as "spike" or "impulse", and an in-article explanation would be much too distracting. It seems to me that the right solution is to use the correct term and wiki-link it, as the article does. Looie496 (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

More to follow tomorrow. Colin°^Talk 20:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for copy-editing; looking forward to any more comments that come along. Looie496 (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what MOS has to say about these various styles of mentioning terms: "theta", "LIA", sharp waves, "ripples". Perhaps Sandy can advise/fix?

I think Sandy has already looked at this, but perhaps another look wouldn't hurt. Looie496 (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• The language may sometimes be a little too informal. Some examples: "a vexing question", "One of the most interesting aspects", "came up empty", "at anywhere close to the rate", "The story for fish is more complex". I was reluctant to mention this as it lightened a complex subject. I'm not pressing for those, or others, to be changed unless others feel it would improve the article.

I'm open to changing any or all of these if others agree with Colin -- or anybody who wants to can of course take a shot at copy-editing them. Looie496 (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• There are a number of paragraphs that end without a citation. Perhaps this text is sourced to the same as the beginning of the next paragraph. It would be clearer if no paragraph appeared unsourced. Of course, if these are genuinely unsourced sentences, then that needs to be fixed ASAP.

This is a problem I've never found a good solution for. It looks awful to me to cite the same reference over and over, for sentence after sentence. But anything else leads people to wonder whether things are referenced. Aesthetically the best solution, I feel, is to put the ref for a group of related sentences at the end, but I've found that people won't accept that. My practice has been to put the ref on the first of the sentences, and then if any individual sentence is questioned, repeat the ref for it. Looie496 (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I work on the assumption that a ref applies to the preceding text in that paragraph, back up to the previous ref (if any), and that the biggest unit one can cover with a ref is a paragraph. If you have three sentences from the one source, but put the ref after the first sentence, that would confuse me. I'm not aware that style is common. I have no problem with sourcing a whole paragraph to one or even a few refs, and placing the note at the end. What I've complained about on another FA is where three, four or five refs are used for a single sentence or even just a single point. If a set of sentences truly is the amalgam of four sources, then four refs go at the end. But that should be uncommon, particularly if one is building from secondary reviews and books rather than primary research. To my eyes, the sentences between a ref and the end of a paragraph (with no ref on the end) appear unsourced. I would be interested if other editors think that style is OK or have advice here. Colin°^Talk

As I said, I agree with this completely in principle, but when I tried to do it that way in Brain, there were numerous complaints about things being unreferenced. Finding an approach that (a) satisfies people, and (b) isn't too ugly, is not an easy problem. To my understanding, the MOS doesn't prescribe what should be done here. Looie496 (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I enjoyed reading this and was surprised that I could. It was hard work in places but I think I got the gist of the difficult stuff, which is all I can expect.

Thanks! Looie496 (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Caveat: I haven't reviewed the the sources to any degree and have no education in anatomy. I can't judge whether the facts are accurate and that any controversies have been given appropriate weight.

Colin°^Talk 22:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - beginning a read-through. I will make straightforward changes but feel free to revert if I change the meaning accidentally. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support I know little about the subject matter, so I'm taking the content on trust. I found this informative and readable, and it appears to have benefited from light copyediting from Casliber and others. I would prefer an article at this level not to still contain redirects, but on the whole I believe that it reaches FA standard jimfbleak (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks—I'm afraid without the redirects the article would be much too long. Looie496 (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Jimfbleak is correct on many points. Informative and well sourced. The nominator says it passed a "good article" review. Possibly for good reason. I see no reason to oppose this article.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 08:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for a single image concern:

• File:792echidna64232.jpg: brainmuseum.org gives permission for only educational or research purposes. "Free" images per Wikimedia/Wikipedia's definition is the freedom to use the image for any purposes, including commercial and to make derivative works.
  • Deleted. Jappalang (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Other Images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that image was okay when I uploaded it, but clearly I was wrong. Fortunately it isn't critical for the article. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

All fixed except the reflexive link from hippocampal formation to hippocampus. This is a case where a separate article ought to exist but hasn't been written yet -- I'm not sure of the proper way to handle such things. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, Further reading could be alphabetical using the same format (last name first) as References. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Looie496 (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know much about the Hippocampus, but I'd like to note it would be yet another gold star for one of the most interesting featured topics: Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Hippos. --JayHenry (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please run through and doublecheck all WP:NBSPs between numbers and units. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 27 June 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 23:01, 20 June 2009 [36].

---

John Douglas (English architect)

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because ... of the encouraging comments made at GA review. It has since had a copyedit and been peer reviewed, again with encouraging comments, so I am submitting it for its worthiness as a FA.

FA reviewers may perceive a potential problem because of the limited number of sources. This is because the sources are limited. The only detailed authoritative publication is the biography by Edward Hubbard. The references in the article in the ODNB are only to Hubbard's book and to some magazine articles or to foreign books to which I do not have access. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Tentative support. Prose looks pretty good, although needs attention in "Styles and practice". Why is "Christian" linked? "Douglas' output was considerable, totalling about 500 buildings." --> "Douglas designed some 500 buildings." "Works not falling into these categories include ..." is a little clunky. So is "Being based in Chester, most of his works were situated in Cheshire and North Wales ...". The "being based" refers to a silent subject (Douglas); not good. "From the start of his career, and throughout it,"—just "Thoughout his career,..."? "Douglas was able to attract commissions from wealthy and important patrons"—"Douglas attracted"? Does BrEng dot "Mrs"? "First-known". "despite being located in the north of England,"—bit awkward: what about "despite its location in ...". See this (your feedback would be welcome). Vale Royal Abbey is stunning! "One of the characteristics of Douglas' work is his attention to detailing, both externally and internally"—is "detailing the word used in the field? (Maybe). I'd have written "A characteristic of Douglas' work is his attention to both external and internal detail." But I'm not an architect. "each other" rather than "one another" if more than two? (Fowler suggests this). Check past versus present tense throughout: "Many of the secular buildings in this period were smaller-scale structures. These include cottages ...". Caption: "St Werburgh Street, Chester, showing Douglas' range of buildings"—Do we see a range? Tony (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony, for the helpful advice. My own "professional" writing was limited to preparing medico-legal defences for tribunals, which did not lead to my developing an elegant style! I think that most of your comments have been dealt with by myself or another editor. Regarding Mrs. v. Mrs, the MoS accepts both. I have tightened the sentence about detail(ing) as you suggested but have maintained the use of the word "detailing"; it is the term used by Hubbard and I suspect it is the architects' favoured term in this context. The image of St Werburgh Street DOES show the range (row) of Douglas' buildings, but not very well (it would have been better for the sake of the article for the photo to have been taken a couple of metres to the left) but I have deleted "range of" from the caption. Re the stunning Vale Royal Abbey, the building is very much a hybrid of different styles; I "cherry-picked" Douglas' work when I took the photo, mainly for this article. There are many more stunning works by Douglas but I do not have my own or public domain images. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good overall. Must admit reservations over the first sentence (don't most biographical articles give what the person is most well-known for, and that wouldn't be being trained in Lancaster). With only one note, 'Notes' seems very arbitrary, I'd consider putting with references under 'Notes and references' or just ommiting the notes bit. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph has been re-written and tightened. I added the note because someone said that with the name "Sholto", it is not surprising that he took to drink! However I agree that the note does not add anything of value to the article. To include it in Notes and References would mess up the citation of the rest of the paragraph, so it has been deleted. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I reviewed this article at WP:GAN and was impressed by it's quality, which appeared to me to be near to WP:FAC than WP:GAN. For a wide-ranging WP:GAN, it was exceptionally easy to review. It has been further improved since I reviewed it as a result of exposure to WP:PR and the various comments made above. Having seen several recent articles progress from GA-level through to FA-level, I am very happy to support this one at WP:FAC.Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. My mild reservations to an excellent article have been addressed and I give my full support. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.buildinghistory.org/style/gothicrevival.shtml

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the ref. I used the source because I knew from my previous reading that it was accurate, it is well referenced and it is easily accessible to the reader. However I perceive that there is a potential problem as the author is also the publisher. I have therefore changed the ref to one from a book. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words about that page from my site (buildinghistory.org). I agree that it is not ideal as a reference. --Genie (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I thought when I peer-reviewed this article that it was already close to FA, and, as noted above by User:Pyrotec, it was easy to review. All my concerns have been addressed, and I am happy to support. Finetooth (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

One image concern as follows:

• File:Douglas caricature.jpg: please move this to Wikipedia. Thomas Alfred Williams?[37] -> Thomas Alfred Williams (architect and surveyor), 1937... With a hearing trumpet, Douglas would be at an advanced age (late 1800s would be more like 1890s-1900s) Young Williams may not have died more than 70 years ago. The caricature is PD in US, but likely still copyrighted to Williams' estate in UK.

Other Images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, you could be right! I had rather assumed that Williams would have died over 70 years ago, but that may be wrong. I have deleted the image from the article; it can be replaced if/when the copyright issue is sorted out and it's OK? (It adds colour but not content to the article). The drawing is in the possession of the Design Group Partnership, which is the continuation of Douglas' practice in Chester. They should have details of Williams' date of death, and I intend to contact them.

I struggle to understand the legal and other issues relating to copyright and all help is appreciated. What would be the point of moving it to Wikipedia? If it's still copyrighted, should it not be deleted from Commons? And if it's OK, why move it? (The other problem is that I do not know how to move it, nor have I been able to find instructions.) Thanks for your advice. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, images stored on Commons have to be in public domain in both US and their country of origin (UK in this case). Images on Wikipedia need only to be public domain in the US. However, I had a misassumption: I thought the image was declared to have been published before 1923. If so, it would be public domain in US, and could be stored on Wikipedia (so only move to Wikipedia if you have its first publishing details, but no information about Williams). Please contact Design Group Partnership for details on Williams so that it is verifiably public domain in its country of origin. Jappalang (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have contacted Design Group Partnership and they have no info about the image or the author. So will the image will have to be deleted from Commons (a pity because it could be out of copyright)? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

By right, yes. In practice... just like Wikipedia, sometimes things get done against policy or guideline just because... Regardless, for an FA, we would prefer every content to be verifiable. Jappalang (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:08, 20 June 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 23:01, 20 June 2009 [38].

---

Battle of the Coral Sea

Nominator(s): Cla68 (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe this article about one of the arguably most significant and complex naval battles of World War II is ready for consideration for FA status. The article passed an A-class review with WP:MILHIST. Thank you (in no particular order) to Nick-D, Trekphiler, GoldDragon, Maralia, and Jehochman for significant assistance in expanding and polishing the article. Cla68 (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments from Binksternet:

• Checklinks check out and Dabfinder is happy.
• Did you want to leave the redlink Cid Harbor in place for some future article or did you want to pipe it with Whitsunday Islands?
• I changed a handful of hyphen stragglers to endashes in situations where numerical ranges were involved.
• 'Deboyne' isn't made perfectly clear where it is, and what it is. The first time the word appears in the article it is associated with Jomard Channel, and the second appearance is "Deboyne Island in the Louisiades", where 'Louisiades' is not linked. I'd like to see it made plain at first encounter that Deboyne is a group of little reefs and islands in the Louisiade Archipelago, and that Deboyne in the WWII sense usually refers to the temporary Deboyne Seaplane Base, a shallow lagoon south of Panaeati (Panniet) Island, ringed by the other reefs of the Deboyne group, with Panapompom Island in the middle, the whole base referred to by the Japanese code designator "RXE".

Well, not all of that!... Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Other redlinks that could be unlinked pending articles written about the subjects: Kenjiro Nōtomi and Destroyer Squadron One Binksternet (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Kenjiro Notomi appears from File:Kenjiro Notomi.jpg to be a squadron commander who quite possibly would not warrant an article of his own. Perhaps better to just remove the wikilink? SGGH ^ping! 10:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Same with the oiler E. J. Henry. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I can't find anything on the E.J. Henry so I'm going to remove the redlink, along with Notomi's. Cla68 (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• The phrase "the Covering Group in providing distant cover for the Tulagi invasion" has the root 'cover' appearing twice. Can the second 'cover' be swapped for 'protection' or something? Binksternet (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Sometimes, a vessel or an aircraft is given anthropomorphic capabilities. A submarine doesn't realize something; an aircraft is unable to send a message. Is this purposeful, or is it better to assign actions or inactions to the crew? Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I fixed the Cid Harbor link as suggested, clarified the Deboyne reference, and changed the use of the word "cover" [39]. I should be starting stubs for the DD squadron and the Japanese pilot within the next few days. Since the redlinks were in the footnotes I wasn't in a hurry to get them done. I'm aware of the issues with giving anthropomorphic qualities to ships. It's just that it's easier to say "Chitose sighted the incoming US aircraft" than "The crew of Chitose sighted the incoming US aircraft." It seems that the use of the ship name also includes the crew, such as by saying, "Lexington traveled to the South Pacific" when what really happened is that the crew piloted and guided the ship by that name to that location. I appreciate the feedback and helpful inputs for the article. Cla68 (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Support I hope I do not repeat any of the above, but if I do I apologise. It is a good article which just needs some tweaking, often very minor points.
  • In the infobox you have commas after each point in the strength sections, but no period at the end before the citation, same with casualties and losses, and the result sections, and location.
  • Perhaps the image captions regarding people, like Flatley, could have expansion to more than the name so a quick peruse and show who they were.
  • "Historians H. P. Willmott, Jonathan Parshall, and Anthony Tully consider" in the Midway section, but the citation reads "Willmott (1982), pp. 459–460; Parshall, pp. 58–59." - no Tully. Is he mentoned by Parshall and/or Willmott? Perhaps a seperate citation would fully seal the deal.
  • In a few cases you have quotations in paragraphs, "a new type of naval warfare" first paragraph is an example, with the citation at the end of the paragraph. I appreciate what you are doing, citing each paragraph to all the sources it uses, but sometimes with quotes I personally would feel more comfortable if an additional cite for that quote is placed immediately after the quotation, just to tie it down.
  • "En route to Truk, however, I-28 was torpedoed and sunk on May 17 with all hands by the U.S. submarine Tautog" perhaps "En route to Truk, however, I-28 was torpedoed on May 17 by the US submarine Tautog and sunk with all hands aboard."? But I guess it can work either way. So many elements to the sentence.
  • Wikilinks do dry up quite quickly after the first couple of section - I have seen in the history that this is trying to be fixed. I also appreciate that you don't want to wikilink something twice, but if there are any to be made, please do.
  • "At noon on May 11, a U.S. Navy PBY on patrol from Nouméa sighted the drifting Neosho ( [show location on an interactive map] 15°35′S 155°36′E / 15.583°S 155.6°E / -15.583; 155.6). The U.S. destroyer Henley responded and rescued 109 Neosho and 14 Sims survivors later that day, then scuttled the tanker with torpedoes.[85]" is a two sentence paragraph in the aftermath section that could perhaps be merged into the one above or below, probably above.
  • As per the talk page, you might want to check up on WP:MOS regarding U.S. or US abbreviations.

All I can think of for now. It is a good article, and I am sure I can return to give support pending a more thorough prose analysis. Though other editors will probably get there before me. SGGH ^ping! 10:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Periods added.
• More descriptive captions added.
• Parshall and Tully were coauthors of the book Shattered Sword. I shortened the book citation in the footnote to just "Parshall" instead of "Parshall and Tully", but since both coauthored the book I felt I needed to mention both names in the text since both appear to take credit for the statement.
• Every quote should have a specific citation. I fixed that one.
• I changed the sentence as suggested.
• I don't believe that there are any significant missing wikilinks. I looked at it again.
• Merged as requested.
• I believe the abbreviations have been standardized throughout the article by the other two editors. I appreciate the constructive feedback. Cla68 (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• This is utterly unrelated to sources, but I find the little globe icon in the middle of the text distinctly annoying. I realize it's a template, but any way we can lose the annoying icon that breaks up the text (much much worse than footnotes do!)
• Is the Mason work a journal article? If so, the title of the article goes in quotations marks to avoid confusion with the title of the journal (I'm confused because there are two entities in italics in the reference)
• Okay, REAL picky here, but for the Cressman ref you go "Missoula, Montana, U.S.A." but for the Morison ref you go "Champaign, Illinois, USA"... and then on the Parshall ref, you go "Dulles, VA". (These are examples, there are others in the refs) Pick one format for the locations and go with it. Either use state abbreviations or don't, either use USA or not, if you use USA decide whether it's U.S.A. or USA. (grins)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know what to do about the globe graphic. I find it annoying also. I think it's useful for readers to be able to link to a satellite-level view of the earth to look at locations referenced but the template is distracting.
• I removed the Mason source. It isn't necessary because other sources included have the same info. The only reason I had left it in the first place was because the editor who originally added it was perturbed the first time I removed it.
• You're right that the publishing locations should be standardized. I just did so. Cla68 (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Re globe graphic: I was coming here to ask the same question. Perhaps a discussion should be started on the template's talk page? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• I started a discussion. Cla68 (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Article meets FA standards, in my opinion. Binksternet (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support This article easily meets the FA criteria - excellent work. I'd also like to highlight that Cla has also created a series of good-quality short articles as part of the process of removing the red links from the article and ensuring that there's a source of further information on topics mentioned in passing. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: The notes section seems to take up almost a quarter (at my resolution) of the article... perhaps a bit of effort can combine relevant notes into the prose? Other than that, I Support featuring this article. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: The Geographical links (Coord links) in the article need better meta data; for example many of the coordinate should use type:event and a descriptive title should be added using |name=. The latter is important as it identify those coordinates as being specific points in the article instead of related to the article. If the coordinate is within country it should use region: with the two digit country code. When the dim parameter is implemented you can give the size in meter instead of using scale. — Dispenser 18:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Could you give an example of what you're describing? Otherwise, I can't understand what you're talking about. Cla68 (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• The coordinate giving for the site of the sunk Destroyer Kikuzuki {{coord|09|07|S|160|12|E}} should include additional meta information., like so: {{coord|09|07|S|160|12|E|type:landmark_dim:123|name=Destroyer Kikuzuki}}. List of other types at WP:GEO#type:T. Using name=Destroyer Kikuzuki names that particular point, tools will display this name instead of the article title. And when I get around to implementing it you can directly describe the coverage of a battle or size of an object in meters using dim: instead of approximating it with scale:. — Dispenser 13:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, I understand now. I'll go through and do that to the different coords in the article. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support outstanding article, lots of different references and alternative angles etc all followed up. As far as WIAFA 1c goes for thorough research, this is a beacon YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Several image concerns:

• File:Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher.jpg: Donated by George Fletcher, this could be a son's (or family member) photo of his uniformed dad in the study. This would not be {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}. Why not the other photos on the NHC?
• File:Csani.gif: source for movements?
• File:Lt James H Flatley.jpg: It could be Navy taken, but just because it came from the National Archives does not mean it is so (maybe a journalist on a visit?). How about this photo?
• File:Shoho damage.jpg: this is an interesting case—US government seizes Japanese document and copies (as a translation) a diagram. I believe it is in public domain; the problem is what is the clause. Bringing this up for discussion at commons:Commons talk:PD files#File:Shoho damage.jpg.
• File:YorktownTulagiSBD.jpg: this seems to be a scan; can the details of the book be provided? Jappalang (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Other Images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I would hope that anyone donating a photo the Naval Historical Center that is posted on the center's Internet page is releasing the photo into the public domain. In case it isn't, I changed the image to one that is clearly copyright free.
• I added source information.
• If the Naval Historical Center or National Archives don't attribute an image, we should assume that it's copyrighted? Anyway, I removed the image.
• Confirmed as public domain. Cla68 (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have added the Flatley photo I mentioned above as File:James Henry Flatley.jpg in case you wish to have Flatley's photo in the article. Jappalang (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• I added the Flatley photo to the article, thank you for uploading it. I also added source information to the YorktownTulagiSBD photo. Cla68 (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments: File:KoeiMaruTulagiBombing2.jpg is in public domain... but I think it detracts from the article; it seems to be showing nothing but a splotch. Jappalang (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I changed the image. I appreciate the constructive criticism. Cla68 (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support After reading the article, it appears extremely thorough and in my opinion meets the FA criteria. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 07:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Agreed with above. The article is thorough enough to cover all of the complexeties of the battle. -Ed!^(talk) 15:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support I've been ready to support except for some image concerns, but took too long writing them up and Jappalang beat me to it (and probably did a far more thorough job anyway!). They appear resolved now, and the article is in great shape. Maralia (talk) 15:41, 20 June 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 23:01, 20 June 2009 [40].

---

On the Origin of Species

Nominator(s): Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... A group of editors have been working on this article for several months in hopes of getting it promoted to FA in time to be featured on the main page for the 150th anniversary of Origin's first publication on November 24th. We now believe it is ready for FAC. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect there is a misuse of the {{main}} template (I raise this because I'm seeing it on a number of FACs). The main template is used when this article is a summary of the linked article. If the linked article isn't fully summarized here, then the seealso or further templates should be used instead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Inclined to agree with this, as the sections here include information which isn't necessarily in the "main" articles and are more focussed on the book than they are. If Rusty has no objections, will change to {{seealso}} throughout. . . dave souza, talk 14:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree also and it is done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support, as a significant contributor to the article before its nomination. In my view this gives concise, comprehensive and fully researched coverage of this significant publication, including the background development and publication of the book, the "one long argument" it puts forward, and its impact on science and society. Care has been taken to meet the style guidelines and incorporate suitable images. . dave souza, talk 14:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"Darwin's book introduced the theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection". I'm troubled by the absence of the critical distinction between natural and sexual selection—a distinction Darwin himself made by sequestering his discussion of the latter into a 16-page chapter in this book. Some people believe sexual selection is but a subset of natural selection, but this is belied in the opening definition of natural selection, linked to in the first paragraph of this nomination:

Natural selection is the process where heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive long enough to reproduce become more common over successive generations of a population. It is a key mechanism of evolution.

By contrast, sexual selection does not concern surviving "long enough to reproduce", but gaining access to the reproductive resources of the opposite sex, largely through the successful display of fitness indicators. In the celebrated example of the male peacock, these imperatives are at odds with each other. The subsection on Sexual selection in Natural selection starts thus:

It is useful to distinguish between "ecological selection" and the narrower term "sexual selection". Ecological selection covers any mechanism of selection as a result of the environment (including relatives, e.g. kin selection, competition, and infanticide), while "sexual selection" refers specifically to competition for mates.

I think the assertion that sexual selection is "narrower" than ecological selection is hard to defend, actually. The confusion continues:

Although a complete theory of evolution also requires an account of how genetic variation arises in the first place (such as by mutation and sexual reproduction) and includes other evolutionary mechanisms (such as gene flow), natural selection is still understood as a fundamental mechanism for evolution.

In the nomination, sexual selection gets a passing mention in a solitary sentence fragment—buried in the middle of the article—that appears to be out of step with its significance and, through omission, inaccurate.

Please comment. Tony (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the first edition, which is the main focus of this article, Sexual Selection is a section of Chapter IV: Natural Selection, and is covered on pages 87–90. The article covers it in a full sentence in the section on that chapter. In the sixth edition, it appears in the same Chapter IV: Natural Selection, on pages 69–70. The reduced number of pages probably reflects the small print of that edition rather than any drastic change. I think the coverage here is proportionate, and the more extended coverage you suggest belongs in the article on The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex where Darwin developed his ideas on the subject. Perhaps a mention of him having extended his ideas on the subject in that other book would be useful. . . dave souza, talk 17:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I appreciate your comments on the deficiencies of a linked article, and have boldly altered the opening definition of natural selection to read "Natural selection is the process where heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common over successive generations of a population." as well as noting the importance of sexual selection in the lead to that article, and deleting "the narrower term" from the section on sexual selection. Doubtless that article needs further improvement by someone with more expertise on modern biology rather than the historical development which is my interest. . . . dave souza, talk 18:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. Tony (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Per a suggestion Dave made on my talk page, I have added another sentence to make it clear that Darwin's primary treatment of sexual selection was in his later work Descent of Man (1871). Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Minor comment The ISBN in the infobox is for the [Dover edition, not the original 1859 edition, which I assume didn't have an isbn. Abecedare (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I looked at some other articles on older books and they all use N/A for the ISBN field in the info box rather than use the ID of a modern edition, so I went with that. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• More comments:
  • "...and during the eclipse of Darwinism various other mechanisms of evolution were given more credit." The term "eclipse of Darwinism" seems forced in this sentence and is unnecessary jargon for the lead. May be better to to just explicitly state the period.

I explicitly stated the period, but I left the phrase "eclipse of Darwinsim" in because the wiki-link to that article is very useful at that point. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the rephrasiong and addition of quotes makes the "eclipse of Darwin" reference clear enough. Abecedare (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I couldn't figure out how and where exactly the reference Forster Marston, pp. 26–27 supports the statement, "Early Christian Church Fathers ... creation according to Genesis,". Can you clarify ?

Sorry that an error made the link unclear, now corrected to show it was Forster & Marston 1999, pp. 26–27. On page 27 the summarise their assessment as "We have now surveyed something of the first thirteen centuries of the church after the death of Christ. We have shown that, whilst exegetes differed in their degree of allegory, simple literalism was not orthodoxy and large groups of Bible-believing Christians thought eg the ‘days’ were not literal." The same issue is covered by Bowler 2003, p. 27, which states that there has never been an unbroken period of consensus on a literal view of creation: medieval scholars were aware of divergent opinions among the early church fathers, and the modern model of creation accepted by fundamentalists was first articulated in the 17th century. . dave souza, talk 13:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • The sentence "Geoffroy thought the environment acted on embryos in the transformations of past eras, as recapitulated by embryonic development, and homologies showed unity of plan reflecting higher laws." is very difficult to interpret and parse. Can it be rephrased ?

Rephrased, trying to make it more explanatory in accordance with Desmond (the source) . . dave souza, talk 17:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "... a kind of wedging, forcing the well adapted into gaps in the economy of nature as weaker structures were thrust out ..." I realize that this is a close copy of Darwin's own words, but it sounds stilted/dated now (especially the "economy of nature"). May be better to either rephrase it, or to introduce quotation marks to indicate that some of the language is Darwin's.

Both Browne 1995 p. 388 and van Wyhe 2009 quote it verbatim, as suggested I've rephrased the sentence to clarify this and have added quotation marks to Darwin's phrases. . . dave souza, talk 17:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor follow-up: regarding "unfavourable variations would be destroyed." Is there a better term than "destroyed" (which perhaps suggests active intervention) ? Discarded ? Reach a dead end ? ...Abecedare (talk)

As van Wyhe notes, Darwin "realised that an enormous proportion of living things are always destroyed before they can reproduce", and in his autobiography wrote that "favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed". We could always soften it to "unfavourable variations would fail to reproduce." However, "destroyed" reflects the bleak Malthusian vision – I don't have strong views on this, and will accept change if it's thought appropriate. . . dave souza, talk 10:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll comment on the talk page if/when I think of a more apt verb. It's not a significant FAC issue. Abecedare (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• • " ... a kind of wedging ... thrust out resulting in the formation of new species." The last part, which I have bolded, is not an obvious consequence/interpretation of Darwin's language in the note. To avoid possible OR, either add a secondary source or remove the last bit.

Both Browne and van Wyhe could be used as sources – I've used van Wyhe, and have rephrased it to leave the focus on natural selection, omitting the ending (which had been based on "The result of this would be the formation of new species" which van Wyhe cites from Darwin's autobiography). . . dave souza, talk 17:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • A couple of stylistic issue:
    • Check for overlinking. Example: wikilinking of philosophical and religious in the lede; Transmutation of species is linked at least 5 times.

I made a pass through and tried to reduce the over linking.Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Much improved, but still some stray overlinking e.g. Asa Gray. Abecedare (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a judgement call, my feeling is that a sensible approach is set by WP:LINK#Link density: "If a later occurrence of a link is separated by a long way from the first. Avoiding duplicate links in the same section of an article is generally a safe rule of thumb." Asa Gray is linked in different well separated contexts, once in each of in four sections (or subsections), and removing these links would in my opinion be a disservice to readers who use the contents list to go straight to their section of interest, or forget where they saw the name before. Will try looking for other cases. . dave souza, talk 14:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I share your views on when linking more than once is appropriate and serves the reader well. Just advice vigilance on the issue (even after the FAC is closed!) Abecedare (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • At certain places the text would flow better by prudent addition of adverbs and conjunctions like however, moreover and since. Readers of this article are introduced to a multitude of technical terms and ideas, and it is useful to guide them as to whether the discussed concepts are supplementary, or oppositional. For example: "Darwin now had the framework of his theory of natural selection 'by which to work'. He was fully occupied with his career as a geologist, and held off writing a sketch of his theory until his book". The second sentence could use a but or a however.

That example's been changed as you suggest, and have gone over text to improve flow of ideas in the same way. . dave souza, talk 07:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

More comments later. Abecedare (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Continued ...
  • Consider adding some discussion of the Butler quote in the Title pages and introduction section. Are there secondary sources discussing what motivated him to add this quote in later editions ?

Have tried adding a description based on Phipps plus a ref to the 2nd. edition when it was added. Will try looking for a source giving Darwin's motivation. . dave souza, talk 17:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Found an indication in Browne, who also gives a different and clearer interpretation, so revised accordingly. . . dave souza, talk 18:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• • The sentence "A topic he treated more fully in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871)." is left hanging (I can't recall the grammatical term for this).

    I've re-worded to "He analysed sexual selection more fully in ..." --Philcha (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Most of the groupings of chapters in the Content section make sense, but I am not sure why Instinct and Hybridism appear under "Difficulty for the theory"

    The way I understand it the chapter 6 "DIFFICULTIES ON THEORY" surveys the difficulties, which include the absence of transitional forms and the apparent perfection of extant organisms. Ch 6 then goes on to deal with how "half-evolved" physical features can provide advantages over unmodified contemporary organisms, and Ch 7 applies a similar analysis to instincts, using slave ants and bees as examples. Ch 8 "HYBRIDISM" undermines the traditional notion of a huge barrier between species in two ways: hybrids are not always sterile; and there is no rigorous disctinction betweeen varieties and species. In his usual style D. writes a mini-article on the subject per se, and then towards the end relates to the surrounding themes. The fundamental issues for a WP article are that it's a big, complex book and D. did not use the "signposting" techniques that are common in moder textbooks --Philcha (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

    Near the start of chapter VI Darwin lists 4 categories (headings) of possible objecetions to his theory and says that he will discuss the first two categories in this chapter and those related to "Instinct and Hybridism in separate chapters". That seems to make the grouping logical. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

    You are right about Darwin's note in Ch. 6, and that is a perfect justification for keeping the discussion of those chapters together. However, I suspect that many other readers will have the question/doubt that I had, so it will be a good idea to address it pre-emptively. Perhaps, the subsection can begin as, "In the next few chapters Darwin anticipated and addressed possible objections to the theory inclusing its ability to explain ..." (rephrase as you will, especially since we don't want that subsection to become unduly large). Abecedare (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

    Ok, I think I have made an edit that addresses this. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Do we need the word Divergence in the "Struggle for existence, natural selection, and divergence" ? It is not a chapter-level topic in OtOoS.

    IMO this is a judgement call, and its a close one. The evidence in favour is seen if you text-search the online version for "the more diversified the descendants from any one species become in structure, constitution, and habits, by so much will they be better enabled to seize on many and widely diversified places in the polity of nature": "Divergence" is a second-level heading within Ch4 "Natural selection"; and Darwin emphasises the topic's importance very explicitly. --Philcha (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

    I agree it is a judgement call, but I think it is a good one. Darwin says right near the start of chapter III that the question he is trying to answer is how varieties of a species diverge into distinct species, and how those species then diverge into distinct genera, and offers natural selection as the answer. Secondary sources, ie (Quammen 2006 p. 188) and (Larson 2004 p. 87), emphasise the imporatance of this. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

    While I would have chosen to remove divergence (to remove any subjectivity), I agree that this is an editorial decision with no real wrong answer. Abecedare (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Consider adding a precis of the "Misc. Objections" chapter in the Content section; perhaps under a new sub-section covering all the later changes. Currently we only say that Darwin added "a new chapter VII, Miscellaneous objections, to address Mivart's arguments."

    Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Instead of "Chapter VIII (of the first edition)" we need "Chapter VII (of the first edition)" since that is the first chapter who's number changed in the 6th edition.

    Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Give some idea of the size of the book (word count or pages), possibly in the infobox.

    I could not find a word-count on the web, and suspect pasting the online text into an editor that gives a word count would be WP:OR. The editor's intro to the online edition] says, "This is true of the issues which are paginated xxxi + 703 pp., but there are also issues in both cloth and paper with a pagination of xxi + 432 pp; these are the cheap ones which tend not to be found in libraries." I suspect the "cheap editions" refers to the small-font 6th edition described at On_the_Origin_of_Species#Publication_and_subsequent_editions. So I'd go with 703 pp as a reasonable indicator. Is that OK? --Philcha (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The link for "editor's intro" seems to have got mixed up with one to OtOOS itself, the quote comes from R. B. Freeman's bibliographical introduction, and 703 pages looks to be the figure to go with. . . dave souza, talk 19:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This is perfectly fine. I just wanted the reader to have some idea of the size; whther it is closer to a pamphlet or a doorstop. Abecedare (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Check for voice changes as in this sentence: "It has been argued that this anticipated the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis, but other scholars have emphasized Darwin's commitment to gradualism."

    Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "...fossils from recent geological periods resembled those still living in the same area, in South America as he had seen, and in Australia as William Clift had shown." Fix grammar.
  • "Darwin explained ... would still be related to species found on the continent, a common pattern." Fix grammar.

    Reworded. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "on many such islands the roles played by mammals on continents are played by other kinds of organisms such as flightless birds or reptiles." Rephrase as active voice ?

    Fixed.Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "... but Lamarckism ... had been discredited." Is this true ? Darwin himself accepted the law of inherited acquired characteristics, while discarding parallel progressive evolutionary lineages.

    Yes that was an unfortunate choice of words. I have reworded it to make it clear that it was Lamarck's transmutational ideas not inheritence of acquired characteristics which were out of favor. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "His scientific method was disputed" → "His scientific method was also disputed" ?

    Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "a concordance, an extensive external index" → "a concordance, an exhaustive external index"  ? That is the typical meaning of a concordance, but I am not sure if it is true for the referenced work.

    Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  • No mention of genetics providing a mechanism for inheritance (in the concluding section) ?

    "merged Darwinian selection theory with a statistical understanding of Mendelian inheritance" is already there I don't understand what would be needed beyond that. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

    True, but I am somewhat surprised that the terms gene (or genetics) and mutation do not appear explicitly anywhere in the article since they provided the conceptual and physical mechanism for the "variation in the population" and "inheritance of variation" (points 5 and 6 in Mayr's summary). A typical lay reader is unlikely to realize the import of Mendelian inheritance, but will surely recognize the word "gene". Just give it some thought. Abecedare (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

    Ok, I take your point. I have made an edit that makes it clear that the alternatives to natural selection that were poplular during the eclipse of Darwinism were rejected because of the development of a better understanding of inheritance and mutation. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond to the replies above, once I have completed one pass through the article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Minor comments. Nice work.
  • The article belongs to the hidden category "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica". Not sure where this is coming from, but surely it can be removed?

Think it's a relic and have removed it. . dave souza, talk 17:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Was there a conscious decision to avoid commas in phrases like "In the 1790s Charles Darwin's grandfather...". I find that the flow improves with commas, and in any case the article is not entirely consistent in this matter. ("In November 1844, the anonymously published...") Outriggr (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if that was a personal preference or a UK tendency, have reviewed the first sections to use commas in these circumstances or rephrase sentences, in progress and think it's looking better. Hope that's the intended effect. . . dave souza, talk 22:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Now completed throughout article. . dave souza, talk 07:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 3 (Hardie..) is actually a translation of Aristotle's Physics... I'd expect to see Aristotle as the author, with translators afterwards. Suggest doing something like:

• Aristotle Physics translated by Hardie, R. P. and Gayle, R. K. Hosted by MIT's Internet Classics Archive, Retireved on 2009-04-23" so that it's clear you're referencing Aristotle's thoughts here.

• Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• All of your refs from the Darwin-online.org site need to give a publisher for them. (which would be... Darwin.org)

Most of these are WP:CITE#Convenience links, and as such we name the original publisher and date, rather than adding in The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online (or a redirect from Darwin Online) as the hosting website – haven't seen a Template:Citation parameter for that. I'm satisfied that the hosting website is reliable. Where we cite original content from the site, they should be named as the publisher – there seem to be some discrepancies as you list below, and I'll recheck that's been done throughout. . dave souza, talk 09:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/punc-eq.html#pe-vs-pg deadlinked

Updated to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html#pe-vs-pg . . dave souza, talk 22:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Serious question here, what makes the replacement reliable? It's an FAQ from basically a usenet group. We don't allow most posts/etc from message boards, what makes this one special? Alternately, we can go through the SPS route, is the author (Welsey Elsberry) a noted authority on the subject? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wesley R. Elsberry is a biologist and well regarded writer, the site has become more than a usenet group, see TalkOrigins Archive#Awards for the recognition it's received: it's been used as a reliable source. . . dave souza, talk 07:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the awards, and most of them aren't really awards, they are "recommended websites". I see it's used in a number of college courses, but the one textbook it's used it, it appears to be a "recommended website" type thing. I actually find the author more persuasive here. I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the inline citations, it's a supplementary reference for two statements: the first is also cited to Bowler, who covers all the points, and the second is fully supported by a journal article by Frank H. T. Rhodes. TalkOrigins Archive is a reputable source for the scientific view in the creation-evolution controversy, and while this is an argument within science, Elsberry is well qualified and the article is both informative and accessible to readers who don't have the book by Bowler or journal access. If the Elsberry reference were removed the text would remain well referenced, but the link seems to me to provide useful additional explanation for those interested. . dave souza, talk 15:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/guide4.html reliable source? (Note it's repeated twice, at current refs 139 and 142, can't you combine those?)

  I combined them. I don't see a problem with this being a reliable source. The website is hosted by a university. The authors are clearly identified and are faculty members of the university (one of them in the Biology department). They cite their sources (they have three separate chapters on bibliographic information). I think that should suffice. Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  Let me clarify upon further research - One of the authors (who apparently died in 2002) was an adjuct professor of biology but he was actually a member of the English department who specialized in 19th century scientfic literature. My comments about the bibliographic information understated things. They have a masive online index (organized by year) to Huxley's private correspondance as well. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  One final point. The name of the deceased professor was Charles Blinderman and a search of google scholar for "Blinderman Huxley" reveals that he was author of a number of articles on Huxley published in a variety of jouirnals. Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 158 (Letter from Charles Kinglsey to Darwin..) needs a publisher

Citation now in format used in earlier references, following the title of the web page and thus giving the publisher's name. . . dave souza, talk 17:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Same for current ref 162 (Gray, Asa..) (Suggest you format the link title like the Letter in ref 158 also)

On review, have formatted to use the journal and publisher template fields, so that after the name, year and title, it gives the names thus: "Atlantic Monthly (Darwin Correspondence Project - Essay: Natural selection & natural theology)" . . dave souza, talk 17:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 165 is oddly formatted in comparison to the others. Suggest "Gray, Asa (May 28, 1874) "What is Darwinism" The Nation hosted at Darwin Correspondence Project, retireved (date)

Reformatted as above, giving "Gray, Asa (May 28, 1874), "What is Darwinism?", The Nation (Darwin Correspondence Project), retrieved on..." . . dave souza, talk 17:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 168 is formatted oddly also. Suggest: Darwin Online Project Biography Darwin.org Retireved on .... Currently it's lacking a publisher, which is only given in the link title.

Reformatted to give "Biography, Darwin Online, 21 January..." . . dave souza, talk 17:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Shouldn't "Summary of Darwin's theory" be rephrased into "Summary of concepts/ideas within the book" and the section begin with "The book describes what later would be called Darwin's theory. In this book, the concepts of the theory is split into these ideas:..." or something like this? Nergaal (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  I think the lead makes it clear enough that the purpose of the book was to lay out Darwin's theory and make an an argument for it. I am not trying to be argumentative but I am just not understanding the reasoning behind your comment. In particular I am not understanding "what would later be called Darwin's theory". The theory has separate parts (natural selection, common descent etc.), but Darwin always viewed it as one single theory. Also all the secondary sources refer to it as "Darwin's theory", even when they are talking about things that preceded the wrtiting of Origin such as his transmutation notebooks, and his famous 1842 sketch of the theory. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Also, publication should be moved down after content and style, just before reception. Nergaal (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  I am not sure about this. If we were to do it we would only move the last two subsections of what is now labled publication and merge the first two into the background section. I suspect that would work, but the way the article is organized now it tells a nicely narrated story that runs from the inception of the theory through the publication of the book, which I kind of like. However, if enough other people feel the reorganization is appropriate I will do it. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  Origin is unusual in that it was published before the author was ready - it was an "abstract" (the word appears in the working title) of the longer work D. planned., and was published in response to the emergency created by Wallace's article. So sub-section "Events leading to publication" is in the right place - you need both the preceding evolution of D.'s ideas and and the sudden pressure to publish in order to understand how the book came to be what it was. Sub-section "Time taken to publish" naturally follows "Events leading to publication", as the latter makes one wonder why D. did not publish earlier, and it makes sense to deal with what appears to be an urban myth that he previously delayed publication out of fear. It's less obvious where to place sub-sections "Publication and subsequent editions" and "Publication outside Great Britain". I suggest that alternative placements of these sub-sections would be worse: placing them after section "Structure and style" would split sections devoted to analysis of the work; section "Reception" should remain in one piece because it's a near-continuous debate that has taken longer than D. took to work out his ideas; and placing the remaining "publication" sub-sections at the end, after "Reception", would jolt the reader back from the present to the mid/late 19th century. --Philcha (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is no mention of non-Christian religions views on the book. n

The reliable sources consulted, including the most well regarded biographies of Darwin, didn't indicate any notable non-Christian religious views: while there were undoubtedly such views in later years, especially as translations became available, they don't seem to have become a notable issue within the scope of this article. . . dave souza, talk 18:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• While this might not be necessary for other books, this one is controversial enough that it might require a separate section on "Present views/issues/debates". Nergaal (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  There has been a strong consensus among the editors of this article not to spend much space on the creation-evolution controversy partly because it is covered so extensively elsewhere, partly becasue Origin is at least primarily work of scientific literature and there is a consensus here at Wikipedia to keep that controversy out of science related articles as much as possible (per WP:UNDUE) and partly because the modern version of that controversy does not much directly involve Origin (not true of 19th century religious debates which are covered in the reception section). However you have a valid point that if we have a "modern influence" section it is a little strange not to at least mention the ongoing controversy in the U.S. Therefore I have added a brief allusion to it with a link to the creation-evolution controversy article to that section in the hopes that that will satisfy everyone. There is also a brief allusion to the start of the curent controversy in the reception section. Rusty Cashman (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Present views/issues/debates", is discussed in On_the_Origin_of_Species#Modern_influence and deals primarily with the ways in which the ideas presented in The Origin have been extended and modified since its publication, in the formation of the modern evolutionary synthesis. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please improve the last image. It has almost twice more lines than text entries. Nergaal (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  I am not sure that the improvement you ask for is possible because I am not sure the unlabled lines even have names. However, I have left a note on the talk page of the image's creator asking him to participate in this discusison. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The unlabelled lines do have names, but if you label all of them the text is too small to read. The labels therefore refer to phyla, with several families making up this grouping. Although I think it is less clear then the current version, the tree with more of the families labelled is File:Collapsed tree cropped.png. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
• In the "Developments before Darwin's theory" section, I wonder if the phrase, "seeking Cartesian mechanical explanations" is very useful, since it can be seen as jargon, and the wikilinks would not provide the relevant information for someone seeking it, I don't think.

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah that was a little jargonish. I have reworded it. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks. Have you taken care of the endash business for ranges, especially page ranges in the references that always comes up? I can't tell on my computer. And I am not really sure of the rule. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment

I have not given the article a thorough review yet so I don't have an opinion on whether or not it meets FA although the article is impressive. The section at the end of the article titled "Religious attitudes" makes no mention of Catholic views. The Catholic Church is the worlds largest Christian denomination, over half of all Christians are Catholic, almost one fifth of the world's population. Official Church teaching accepts evolution as a possible explanation for creation but rejects attempts to use the theory to promote the religion of Atheism saying this goes beyond the bounds of science. The Church operates the world's largest non-govermental school system which teaches evolutionary theory in science classes alongside creationism in religion classes with no apparent problems. Maybe something could be added to this section to include Catholic viewpoint. NancyHeise ^talk 03:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I added a brief mention of Pope Pius XII's famous 1950 encyclical on evolution to the end of the section. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's better. I made some corrections and added another reference to supplement the primary document Humani Generis. The added source is a Nihil obstat, Imprimatur scholarly source on Catholic doctrine. NancyHeise ^talk 17:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support There are many ways this article could have gone horribly wrong but the editors got the big picture right:
  • The article is rightly focused on the book - background of its writing and publication history, editions and translations, it's content and revisions, and reviews and reception - and does not devolve into recentism, generic discussion of the theory of evolution and Darwin's other writings and contributions, or, worst of all, the recent US-centric creationism/ID vs evolution controversy.
  • It avoids peacockery ("most influential" etc) even when such encomiums could be "reliably" sourced; such labels are more suited to magazine articles than encyclopedias and this article rightly avoids them.
  • The sources used in the article are high quality and seem to be a fair sampling of the literature. The bibliography in this area is vast and ever expanding though, and the article can possibly benefit from the addition of material from some recent publications like The Cambridge Companion to the 'Origin of Species'.

So while I hope the article will continue to be improved (e.g., the Literary style section can be fleshed out) even after this FAC is closed, I am happy to support its promotion to a FA and look forward to seeing it on the main page on November 24th. Nice work with the article + responding to the reviewers. Abecedare (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. In response to your comment on the literary style section. I have added some material drawn from a Source, The Annotated Origin (Darwin, Costa 2009), that was just published last month. I have no doubt that as the Darwin Industry solders on, it will continue to produce new material that will be reflected in this article, and that there will be other improvements as well.Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• n the Light of Evolution III: Two Centuries of Darwin for example! Tim Vickers (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Neutral This article contains an immense amount of information that is basic in shaping our current state of knowledge (maybe not the best way to word it, but I mean something like that as it is so fundamental yet immensely complex), and it is fascinating and engaging reading. The authors have done a terrific job of putting it all together in a way that makes sense, and expands the reader's thinking. However, I think I was too quick to support, as I see information is still being added. I will strike it out for now, until I catch up with the new material! —Mattisse (Talk) 21:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comments Sorry! I supported the article because it clearly focused on the book and did not get into some of the issues that have now been added. I am ambivalent about the direction the article is taking. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the near support, and it'll be appreciated if you could add some notes on the article talk page to point to the concerns with recent additions or revisions for discussion and resolution. . . dave souza, talk 22:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments I have noticed several (possible) issues with the citation style consistency.

• There seems to be no consistent choice for denoting the editor of a title. I have noted "ed." "(Editor)" and "(editor)" all being used.

• I fixed them all to use the editor-last and editor-first fields of the citation template. This standardizes on "ed.". Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• The article generally follows the convention "Lastname, Firstname Other Initials" for author names. There are however a few exceptions that either spell out all names and some others that list only initials.

• I would assume that this means that in some cases the source provided the author's middle initial and in some cases it did not. I think the citation should present the name the same way the source did. An exception would be a casle like the "Adrian Desmond" case mentioned below where it could be a little confusing because you have different sources who provided the same author's name in different forms. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine if the article used the form of the name as used on the referenced publication. Again this is not what is happening, for example "an essay on the principle of population" lists its author as T.R. Malthus, but the article follows the form used by econlib.org using his full name.

I am just not seeing the problem or any possible solution here. I don't see how this could be standardized. In the case of Thomas Malthus his full name is quite well known and I don't see any problem in using it. In the case of E. Janet Browne I have no ideat what the E. stands for. Even her wikipeda article doesn't say. I suppose if I did enough research I could find out, but I don't think it is worth it, nor do I think it would be wise to use her full name since she is best known as either E. Janet Browne or Janet Browne and using another form of her name would probably just be confusing. Similarly I would not use Charles Robert Darwin or even Charles R. Darwin because I think that would just confuse things. I do think in the dase of Desmond you had a point because it is confusing to use two different forms of the same author's name on different sources, but other wise I don' see what is wrong with using "Peter J. Bowler" with a middle initial and "David Quammen" without given that those are the most common representations of those individual's names. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(TimothyRias (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

About E. Janet thing, this actual consistent with the rest of the refs. (you spell out the primary given name, which in this case happens to be the middle instead of the first name. I see the problem with trying to spell out names where only initials are given. (which is why I tend to use only initials since those are always available) At least the article is semi-consistent with regard to this aspect. (It is not like you are at random switching between full names and initials.) So it should be OK. (TimothyRias (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

• When authors are referenced multiple times usually only the first occurance is wikilinked. Some authors are wikilinked multiple times, (eg. Peter J. Bowler).

• I have eliminated the over linking. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Are "Adrian J. Desmond" and "Adrian Desmond" the same person?

• Yes. I have fixed it to read Adrian Desmond in both cases.

• Some titles are capitalized using the 'American' convention (capilize all nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs) while others use the 'British' convention (capitalize only first letter and proper nouns.

(TimothyRias (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

• Perhaps there is some WP policy I am not aware of, but I would assume that the citation should follow the same convention as the source did. Since this article uses some books published in Britain and some books published in America it is not surprising that not all the sources use the same convention. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article isn't doing that either. Take for example the references to "On the Origin of Species" itself. The source (i.e. the book itself) uses all caps, the Darwin online website linked to from reference has the title in normal sentence case, and yet the reference itself has the title in title case. Anyway, the choice on which case to use is a purely stylistic one and is part of the citation style, just like whether you present the title in italics or not. I'm not aware of a specific WP guideline talking about what case to use, however, this falls under the general guideline that citation style should be consistent throughout an article. (TimothyRias (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

Ok, I have gone through the references and I think they are all now using the same capitalization style. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Image concerns as follow:

• File:Asa Gray, US botanist.jpg: US copyright law is centered primarily on first publishing date. When was this photo (if ever) published, i.e. printed in books, magazines, etc, or copies passed around to the public? Furthermore, which part of http://www.umich.edu/~bhl/ is it at?

  I have been trying to figure out where the image originally came from without much luck, I just took it from the Asa Gray article and noted that it was labled as public domain. Interestingly, it has since been replaced by another better photo in that article. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any better information available on the source for that photo other than that it was taken circa 1880. However, when I was looking at google books in a futile effort to find a published source for either of the photos. I found a third good picture of Gray at the front of a biography on him published in 1890 a couple of years after his death. I will see tomorrow (it is late tonight) if I can upload it and use it. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  In case you want other choices than the one you are going to upload, File:Asa Gray (1867).jpg, File:Asa Gray (1841).jpg, and File:Asa Gray01.jpg are verifiably public domain pictures of Asa Gray. Jappalang (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, File:Asa Gray (1867).jpg looks ideal as it shows Gray around the time that he was helping to get the book published, rather than later when he grew the beard. It would also suit the image being placed on the left, which could help the layout. . . dave souza, talk 14:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I used it. As a bonus since it looks straight ahead I was able to restore the left/right alteration of images, and this image is clearly sourced to a 1903 book, which should put it indisputably in the public domain. Thanks for the help. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• File:Cuvier elephant jaw.jpg: which paper of Cuvier did this appear in? I checked both 1876 1796 papers,[41][42] and it was not in either of them.

  The image is from a paper on living and fossil elephants that Cuvier presented to the French academy of sciences in 1796. It was actually publised under the title Mémoires sur les espèces d'éléphants vivants et fossiles in 1800. The image is reproduced in Rudwick, Martin J.S. (1997). Georges Cuvier, Fossil Bones, and Geological Catastrophes among other places including UC Berkley's paleontology website here.Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  Actually, the Berkeley site states the drawing to be published in 1798, while Rudwick's book states 1799. As said earlier, this is the 1796 text (presentation) of Mémoires sur les espèces d'éléphants vivants et fossiles (published in Magazin Encyclopaedia) and it had no drawings. Thanks to Rudwick's book, however, the point now seems moot. Jappalang (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, but you are correct. Close reading of the caption in Rudwick's book makes it clear that the image was published with the 1799 printed version of the paper, not with the original text presented to the academy in 1796. I have corrected the caption to reflect this and I will review the captions in the articles I have used this image. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Other Images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I must have had too much of spirit of '76 when I wrote the year of 1876 above (corrected to 1796)... Jappalang (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleared. Jappalang (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. This is a really impressive article; it does an admirable job of synthesizing the large amount of modern historical writing and it hits all the major themes and balances them quite well. I can think of a few things that get short shrift and will probably need to be improved in the future, in particular related to the significance and broader context of Darwin's reliance on evidence from selective breeding and the reception of the book among breeders. But this stuff is still developing and hasn't been published yet (so far as I know); as Rusty notes, the Darwin Industry keeps on churning.--ragesoss (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Something that described the impact of Origin on selective breeding practices would be quite interesting and certainly worth brief mention in the article. I would be surprised if there wasn't such an impact, but I have never run accross a source that discussed it. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I did the GA review on this, so I've held off until I saw the comments from reviewers with no previous involvement. My main concern in the GA review was the length of the "plot summary", but that was only my opinion. Reviewers at this page seem happy with the length of the "plot summary", and I accept the consensus. I think the article's coverage and balance are excellent and I found it extremely interesting despite reading it during the slog of a review. I've done a few articles on very large topics so I'm aware of how much of the research and draft text winds up on the cutting room floor in such cases. I greatly appreciate Dave and Rusty's courage, determination and skill in improving this huge article in order for it to reach FA status. --Philcha (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Rageross - it can & will still improve but clearly meets FA standards already. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 20 June 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 23:01, 20 June 2009 [43].

---

Early life of Keith Miller

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Subarticle of Keith Miller, a famous Australian Test cricketer, footballer and air force fighter pilots. Covers his life up to his enlistment in 1940 (aged about 20)... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments from the lead.
• Links shouldn't be bolded per WP:MOS.
• The first sentence is a bit clunky. I suggest: "The early life of Keith Miller, an Australian Test cricketer and Australian rules footballer, encompasses about 20 years between 1919 and 1940, when he joined the Militia (army reserve) during World War II."
• The youngest of four children of Scottish descent - "Younger" → "youngest"?
• Due to his size, Miller yearned to be a horse racing jockey. - I see what you're going for here, but surely not everyone his size becomes a horse jockey?
• still only 162 cm tall - How many inches is that?

Tweaked teh above YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• The lead seems too focused on cricket, rather than his life in general. Where was he born? What was his personality? Who were his parents?

Added birth....Well he was notable for playing sport, not schoolwork, and I'm not sure what else there is to say. I didn't put his parents in the lead as they are just normal people, unlike and early life for McCain or GWB, there is no notables in the ancestry. Personality, I don't think it is that important but even then he didn't develop his anti-authority outlook and party antics until he went to war. After that he said "Cricket is not pressure. A Messerschmitt up you arse is" and was completely carefree because nothing compares to war. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Unlink the dates in the references.
• "from his birth on 28 November 1919 up until 20 August 1940" Spot the redundant word.
• Do we really need a link to World War II? What in that article is necessary for readers' understanding in this article?
• "Born in the town of Sunshine on the outskirts of Melbourne, Miller's early life was dominated by his interest in sport" Dangling modifier. "Miller's early life" was not born in Sunshine, although Miller was.
• Is there anyway you can explain what "first-grade" and "first-class" debuts are, and how they are different?
• "In one noted performance" Obviously it was noted, otherwise you wouldn't put it in the article.
• "rearguard " WP:JARGON, please explain and/or link.

More later... Dabomb87 (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Apart from WWII, I changed the rest. If I hadn't the next guy will complain... but I don't have strong opinion YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; I don't really care that much. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• "His shots did not travel a long distance" Could be "His shots did not travel far"
• "Miller was a mediocre student, because he did little study and focused his energy on sport." I think it would make more sense if the clause order was switched: "Because he did little study and focused his energy on sport, Miller was a mediocre student."
• "In 1939–40, Miller was selected" Is this a season?
• "while Clem Hill also predicted a bright future for the Victorian." "while"-->and. Not sure what "also" is doing there.
• "making 37, one and 24 in his remaining" "one"-->1 (got to keep it consistent) Dabomb87 (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed all of these. Normally numbers < 10 are spelt out, but is there a rule that if they are in a group then it is all numners? I'll have to keep that in mind YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, specifically: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures". Dabomb87 (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• The early life of Keith Miller, an Australian Test cricketer and Australian rules footballer, encompasses almost 21 years, from his birth on 28 November 1919 until 20 August 1940. This article encompasses that exact range, but "the early life of Keith Miller" was not officially certified as ending on the latter date. No need to be afraid of stating what the article is doing rather than artificially pigeonholing him. Is a lede image of "Keith Miller in 1946" the best choice for an article covering his life up to 1940? Two sentences repeating the details of his siblings? Gladys is 12 while Sunshine is eleven kilometres. Miller grows 28 cm (11 in) (unexpanded and converted) while Sunshine is eleven kilometres (expanded and unconverted). Lifeblood flows, it doesn't "centre". Numerous other instances of poor phrasing suggest a copy-edit would be beneficial. Fivetypes (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://stats.rleague.com/afl/seas/1940.html

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed it sources only a date, not importnat YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• Early schooling: "Miller saw his first Melbourne Cup in 1926 at the age of seven and has been fascinated ever since." Hard for him to still be fascinated when he died in 2004.
• Melbourne High School: "In addition to cricket and football, Miller also played baseball and competed in swimming." No need for "also" here.
• Representative beginnings: Is Leaving year correctly capitalized?
• "18-year old", One more hyphen needed.
• "before being caught by future co-writer Richard Whitington from the bowling of Harold Cotton." I was confused by "future co-writer". I see from clicking the link that Whitington collaborated with Miller, but I think this needs to be made clearer.
• Space needed after reference 45.
• "Miller asked the umpire Bradman had caught a bump ball." Should "if" be in here somewhere?
• Breakthrough into the VFL: Decapitalize first word of The Netherlands? Giants2008 (17-14) 15:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Rm the forgotten one YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Support – Quite a solid article, and it's a nice read as well. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I've not read through the entire article, but there are no glaring issues in the first few sections, so I'll support. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Support A solid, comprehensive article. There are some minor issues that need addressing but none of them are deal breakers. Great work once again.

• "anlea engineer and sportslover"? needs fixing but I am not sure what the correction should be

Fixed YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "162 cm (64 in)" This should be "162 cm (5 ft 4 in) tall {{convert}} uses "ftin" to perform this calc. I have changed others but the article needs going over in full to ensure we get them all.

Fixed all YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "he scored 61 to ..." I would specify (and link) runs here.

Fixed YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "11 km (6.8 mi) west of Melbourne’s city centre ..." is 6.8 mi too precise?

WE'll live. Both have two sig figs! YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Significant figures! I haven't seen them since Year 10 science class! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "the inner-eastern middle-class Melbourne suburb ..." I would say "middle-class inner-eastern Melbourne suburb". Further, if possible and sources allow, specify that Sunshine was (and still is) a working class area. This would give the "middle class" part of your sentence about Elsternwick a little more context.

Fixed YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "just 400 m (1310 ft) away ..." Should this be yards rather than feet?

Fixed YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Miller often practised for hours by himself, putting a tennis ball inside a stocking, before suspending it from a clothes line and hitting it back and forth" This reads a little laboured to me, should it be split? Or perhaps "Miller often practised for hours by himself, hitting back and forth a tennis ball placed in a stocking and suspended from the clothes line."

Fixed. Used a semicolon YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "However, his lack of height made him turn to horseracing" Is "made" the right word here?

Fixed YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• If MHS has a Latin motto, wouldn't be better to include it and the translation, rather than mentioning just that the Eng. version is a translation. The MHS article lists the motto in English only.

Fixed/rm, I assumed Perry has made a mistake. Surely the motto pic is correct YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A mistake, by Perry, surely not!?! :-) -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "First XI" needs a link 11 (number)#In sports?

Fixed YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "No. 6" or "number six" for batting order positions. This may need some discussion at WP:CRIC as it is a perennial topic.

In lieu of a convention, as long as it is consistent (which it is) I don;t think it matters. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• class dunce ..." Not sure on this one, but isn't the usual phrasing "dunce of the class"

I didn't think so. Not sure YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a dealbreaker in any sense. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "from playing for Souths..." "Souths" is a Sydneyism, the Melbourne term is simply "South" I assume Perry is a NSWian and that is why he has used the term?

He's a lifelong Vic, worked for the Age...shocking I know.... I'm not sure about this YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Perry is a Victorian? My God! Regardless, "Souths" is a well-known shibboleth for Swans fans, allowing them to spot the Rugby League heretic. See here (at the bottom of the page) for an example. Of course, this is not a reliable source. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "figures of 7/29 ..." Should this be 7 wickets for 29 runs (7/29) at the first instance.

Already in footnote YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "and collapsed to 5/6 ..." This is a little confusing given the different scoring terms used in Aust. compared to elsewhere. Perhaps expand?

Footnoted YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "which he lengthened by 10 cm (3.9 in) ..." "lengthened"? It doesn't read well to me, but if others are satisfied.

The thing is I already used "growth spurt" earlier in the sentence, so I can't use "grow" again. Is "rose" allowed?

YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really fussed, if you are happy with it as it is ... -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "28 cm (0.92 ft) ... " should be (11 in)

Fixed YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Miller completed year 10 ..." "year 10" or "year ten" as in the lead. I prefer numerals as it is consistent with "year 9" etc.

Fixed number YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Miller was targeted by renowned enforcer Jack Dyer, known as Captain Blood." "targeted" how?, physically, I presume but the context is not clear.

Physically, although it didn't say whether with was a legal bump for cheap illegal punch when the umpire wasn't looking. The latter was very common in the pre-TV era YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "goal umpire" needs linking to something, but I am not sure what.

Fixed YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "they did not make the playoffs." "playoffs" is an anachronistic Americanism. I would use "finals" with a link for context. There is an article about the 1940 season and this shows only one final was played, the Grand Final. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Link. The article on the seasons links to a jargon page where it says that 4 made teh finals and the tables have a demarcation after the top 4. For some reason the prelim/semis aren't listed. HAve to ask teh AFL peopel YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on an image concern:

• File:WMWoodfull.jpg: no source for this photo, or to verify that the photo is indeed taken in 1930 and under Australian copyright (taking note that the player has traveled extensively to UK for cricket matches and must have been interviewed/photographed there as well).

Other Images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Jargon ... what is a bump ball? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 20 June 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 23:01, 20 June 2009 [44].

---

Bill Ponsford

Nominator(s): Mattinbgn\^talk 10:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the featured article criteria. The article is based on a well-researched biography of Ponsford but draws from a wide range of complementary sources. As well as comprehensive coverage of Ponsford's cricket career, the article covers part of Ponsford's life not often covered in other articles etc.; namely that he was a leading baseball player in his time in Australia. Mattinbgn\^talk 10:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Support
  • I think a brief copy edit might be useful, I have worked through the lead and hopefully you agree with my changes. I shall scan through for any other issues. There are a lot of short sentences which could be expanded with commas and so on.

• • Mostly agree with your changes, certainly a net positive for the article. I made one change back; I kept the baseball sentence separate as it is a separate concept and your change made it appear that his baseball career followed his cricket career when in fact, his time in the two sports was interwoven. Personally, for the sake of 38 balls I would have left his bowling style blank; I don't think 38 balls is a big enough sample to make a judgement on style but happy to see it kept there for the sake of completeness.

• Yes, but I'm sure he bowled many deliveries in club cricket and other games, I would certainly include it even if in first-class cricket he only bowled 38 balls - after all, it is still a fact. SGGH ^ping! 15:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Is there a WP:MOS stating that MBE's need to be sub-texted?

• • Not that I am aware of—but I am not aware of anything saying that they shouldn't be. I saw it elsewhere and like the way it looked; cleaner, to my eyes anyway. I am not wedded to it and if it is unacceptable I am happy to change it.

• It's fine as far as I am concerned. SGGH ^ping! 15:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm not quite sure about the "and more records" part of the "Test debut" sub-heading, it just sounds a tiny bit like "he was so amazing at cricket he broke so many records and here are even more records" but it is probably just me being over-sensitive!

• • Well he was "so amazing at cricket he broke so may records"! I find titles difficult to write, I wanted to get across the theme of the section, which covered his Test debut and his record breaking series of innings. I understand NPOV is important but if something is remarkable, I don't think there is any harm in saying so, provided it is factual and not over-the-top

• • "Ponsford scored 352 runs, 334 of them a single day" do we know how many balls it was scored off? If so, could it be added. Given that much came in just one day, it would be interesting.

• • I can't find any record stating the deliveries faced in that innings. CricketArchive is normally pretty good for that sort of thing but no luck this time. I agree, it would be fascinating.

• • The Bodyline article alternates bodyline with bodyline, do we know which wp:mos refers?

• • WP:CRIC#STYLE does not provide any guidance. I don't recall italicising this word, I think this change was made by an earlier reviewer. As an "invented" word, I don't think it is inappropriate to italicise the first mention of the word in this article but if others disagree I am willing to change.

• • "In only his third first-class match, Ponsford broke the world record for an individual innings at that level, scoring 429 runs and batting for nearly eight hours" is it possible to discover what his average was after those first three matches? Would be interesting here.

• • He had scored 616 runs from 4 innings with no not-outs for an average of 154.00, which is very high but not remarkably so. I calculated this average from first principles and given that some of the self-generated statistics in other cricket FACs have been challenged as OR I am reluctant to add it.

• • "The medallion came with an honorary membership of the club, and Ponsford was an enthusiastic trainer, running from school to the nearby Brunswick Street Oval in the Edinburgh Gardens to practise in the nets." Do you mean that as a member of the club he was an enthusiastic trainer (in which cause, "was" should perhaps be "became")? Or are they unrelated comments in the same sentence?

• • Changed as per your (correct) inference and suggestion

• • "Ponsford had a much better season—especially in the Test matches—than four years previously. [...] In helping his captain to wear down England's bowling he accomplished great work and, even if he was seldom really attractive to watch, there could be no question about his skill and how difficult he was to get out."[53]" I don't think you need to insert your own [ ] as you are using the ... to signify that these two lines don't actually follow on in the text, rather than inserting [a] word to supply clarification or grammatical sense.

• • I have always used [...] where the ellipses follow a full stop to avoid confusion. If this is wrong I am of course willing to change.

• • • There's another one of these in the baseball section.

• • • See above

All I can think of at the moment. Good stuff, SGGH ^ping! 14:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and suggestions. They have certainly improved the article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Once others have brought up anything further, I shall return and review my comment to a "support" or "oppose". SGGH ^ping! 15:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support I did some more prose massaging, and I don't think there are any deal-breakers as such left. It is clearly comprehensive and fulfils other FA criteria. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the improvements and the review. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments – These are for about half the article. I'll try to come back for the rest of the article within the next two or three days.
• In the lead, should bodyline be capitalized? I've always seen it that way in other cricket articles.

• I personally would not capitalise it, and WP:CRIC#STYLE does not provide any guidance one way or the other but Donald Bradman, pretty much the "gold standard" for cricket biographies does capitalise the term. Now in capitals.

• Early life: "Ponsford won the batting and bowling average in 1913, 1914 and 1915 for his school team...". Is "won the batting and bowling average" an often-used phrase in cricket?

• It is at minor club level (not so much at professional level), where it often comes with an award or trophy. It is a little confusing so reworded.

• Cricket career: "before surpassing former England captain Archie MacLaren's world record 424." Add "of" before the number?

• Yes, omitting the "of" is a little "newspaperish". Now added.

• "whose 305* runs was the previous highest score against Tasmania." Is there a reason the asterisk is here? Is it something related to cricket scoring.

• It is standard cricket notation for "not out" From the article: A batsman's score is often appended with an asterisk to indicate that he was not out; for example, '10*' is read "10 not out". The difference between 305 and 305* is generally felt to be significant by cricket fans. I could spell the term out or leave it out (or link the asterisk?), yours and others thoughts are welcome.

• "the experienced Collins was confident enough to take the strike for most of Tate's bowling and Ponsford went on to make a century (110) on Test debut." "his" before "Test debut"?

• Again, newpaperish. Now added.

• "illness interrupted his tour with tonsillitis causing him to miss three weeks of cricket in June...". This is one of those somewhat awkward sentence structures that I see a lot of here. An easy fix is, "when tonsillitis caused him to miss three weeks of cricket in June...".

• Much better wording. I assume that you have spotted others in this article; is there any others you can point out or some general advice you can give?

• Actually, I don't remember any after this one. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• "In December 1927, he improved on his own first-class cricket world record score, hitting 437 against Queensland". Make the comma immediately following this a semi-colon. It would make the sentence read much better.

• You are correct, now done

• "In a wet English summer, Australia won the series two Tests to one, recovering the Ashes. Why are there italics here?

• I don't recall adding them, now removed and the definite article preceding has been capitalised per WP:CRIC#STYLE

• "Ponsford played a part in Bradman's success with Wisden stating". Another of these awkward "with" connectors. Maybe try a semi-colon here?

• Done, I will take a run through the article with a view to improving on the "with" and "after" etc. connections

• "After Ponsford returned to the dressing room after his dismissal". Two "after"s here. Perhaps change the second one to "following". Giants2008 (17-14) 00:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reworded, but a little differently from your suggestion. Thanks for taking the time to review and your suggestions. They have certainly improved the article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Waited a little longer to re-review it because of Brian's exhaustive commentary. The article is decidedly sharper than when I originally reviewed it.

• Personal life: "On his return from England in 1926, the bank advised him that they might not tolerate so much leave for cricket in future." Should it be "in the future"?

• I think either are acceptable in AusEng but "the" is now added.

• "However, in the event recently retired Test cricketer Ian Johnson was appointed." Reads like something is missing from the sentence. What is this supposed to be referring to?

• Added "to the position" which is the Secretary position referred to in the previous sentence

• I was wondering what "in the event" means. What event? Am I not reading this correctly? Giants2008 (17-14) 14:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Baseball: Space before reference 99 to remove.

• done, thanks

• Legacy and statistical analysis: "Ponsford was not satisfied with merely making centuries, he strove to score 200 and more." Change the comma to a semi-colon?

• I would agree, some others may not. Nevertheless, now done

• Grammar: "Apart from Brian Lara, Ponsford is only man...".

• Errrrk! Now fixed, thanks

• "His 437 against Queensland is ,as at 2009". Move comma, and possibly change "at" to "of"?

• The comma is fixed but "at" has been kept. It reads better to me that way, although I happy to receive suggestions from others.

• "Ponsford and his long-time partner, Woodfull were known as...". Comma after Woodfull. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed and moved. Thanks for taking such a close look at the article for me. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 06:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support and will continue copyediting. I think that more background to the ADelaide Bodyline Test should be given, re near-riot, and the threat to cancel the match, to show how bad it is. Also, is 34 young? I know Macartney/Tiger/Grimmett played until they were 40, but I thought the average retirement in those days was a bit younger. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review and the copy-editing. The Adelaide Test actually is a good candidate for its own article (say Third Test, 1932–33 Ashes series) with all the drama on and off the field. I am conscious, however, that the article is about Ponsford and I am a little loathe to delve too deeply into events where his role was a minor one. I do mention that the Test was controversial and I mention Oldfield being hit but perhaps I can add a sentence about Woodfull and Warner in the dressing room. As for 34 being young, I guess not, but his retirement was a surprise to everyone and was certainly widely considered premature. I will consider rewording. Thanks once again for your help and advice. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I had another think. Bardsley, V Richardson, Woodfull, Collins, Ryder, etc. They did seem to retire really old then. I guess they retired young from 1945-70. Other things though

Thanks for the changes in the Bodyline section

• What happened in 1933/34 domestic? Did Ponny have a strong season to regain his Test spot after Bodyline?

• '606 runs at an average of 50.50 including one century. Not too shabby but nothing exceptional. If I had to speculate, I would say reputation and past performance got him selected. Is it worth a sentence?

• Why did he miss a Test against RSA?

• I would assume lack of form, but I can't find anything to say that was the case. The Wisden archive is no help, the bio doesn't even acknowledge the series's existence. Off line sources are drawing a blank too. Certainly he had a sub-par season, by his standards.

• I think a comment or two explaining the magnitude of VIC v NSW is needed. In Cricket the Australian Way by Pollard, in Mailey's chapter he talks about the intense rivalry at the time, pseudo-Test almost, and mentions Ponsford's intensity in these matches, who may have been very prolific in those matches, I don't know about the ones outside the 1107 game. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Added a quote from Mailey about Ponsford v. NSW. Best I could find but I thinks gets the point across. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• What happened in 29-30? He must have done something otherwise he wouldn't have been selected for England. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• 729 runs at 45.56. Again, nothing spectacular, but solid enough to earn selection I guess. No source I can find ties his selection to his run scoring that season. It was however, the fourth highest aggregate for the season.

Might as well put in something for the missing seasons I think instead of leaving a black hole. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Added sentences on both. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• OpposeComment: Much more work required on the prose, to bring it to FA standard. In the lead alone I found the following:-
  • "...he formed part of a successful and long-lived partnership opening the batting for Victoria and Australia with his friend Bill Woodfull." The wording is clumsy. It has to be made clear that Ponsford was part of two separate, distinct pairings with Woodfull, one at state level, the other at Test level. Also I think the use of the word "partnership" might be confusing in the cricketing context. And, as presently written, it sounds as though Woodfull was primarily Ponsford's "friend" rather than his state and international captain.

• • I am not sure I follow what you are saying here at all. The wording may be clumsy but it does clearly state "Victoria and Australia" (i.e. two separate and distinct teams; they are even wikilinked). The pair were lifelong friends (and their families are now interwoven through intermarriage, but that is outside the scope of the article). I am unsure why Woodfull being Ponsford's captain for part (but not all) of their time together in the Vic. and Aust. team is any more relevant in the context of the sentence.
    • The point is that the pairings of Ponsford and Woodfull at state and at national level had distinctly different histories. I haven't looked at the details of their joint state careers, but I believe they opened together for a good few seasons. At Test level, of Ponsford's 29 matches and Woodfull's 35, they played in 24 together, and opened on just 12 occasions, never for an entire Test series. In other words, their Test pairing was quite sporadic. While I don't expect you to include all this information in your opening paragraph, I think the impression of a single, long-lived partnership at state and Test level needs correcting. I prefer the word "pairing" to "partnership", because in cricket the latter can refer to something else, e.g. an opening partnership of x runs, etc. And I still think you should find a way of introducing Woodful other than as Ponsford's friend. Brianboulton (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• • You need to specify that he twice broke the record for the highest individual score in first class cricket.

• • Added, but seems redundant to me. An individual could hardly break a team record.

• I have made a slight tweak to show that he is the only person to break the record twice (as per my reading). How does it stand with you? SGGH ^ping! 06:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Fine, now Brianboulton (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• • The fact about Ponsford and Lara being the only players with two 400+ scores is a separate matter from the record-breaking score, and shouldn't be in the same sentence.
  • "cut shot" needs a link

• • The only instance of cut in the lead section is already linked (to List of cricket terms#C). Is there somewhere else you mean?
    • No, you are right. Sorry. Brianboulton (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Re baseball, you should say Ponsford also represented his state and country... etc

• • It seems "also" has now been added but I am not sure it adds much.
    • It's useful when you are adding a subsidiary skill to someone's main achievement, e.g. Bradman was also a scratch golfer, and it improves the prose flow (provided it's not overused). Brianboulton (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Apart from these lead issues, a few sample points from further down:
  • He had "the highest batting and bowling average". Er... highest bowling average? Was he a dreadful bowler, then?

• • Thanks for picking that up, that was an error introduced by myself when rewording the sentence in response to an earlier comment. Now fixed (Thanks to SGGH)

• • "Returning to Australia, Ponsford continued to make large scores" - not good writing, needs rewording along the lines "In the season following his return to Australia, Ponsford continued..." etc

• • Yes, much better wording. Thanks.

• • "continued where he had left off" is a bit vague and informal for an encyclopedia, perhaps.
• The above is not an exhaustive list of prose that needs attention. With appropriate further work, the article has the makings of featured class, but it does not at present meet the requirements of criterion 1(a). Brianboulton (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time to review. I will respond to those remaining shortly -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• More (mainly) prose issues: I have begun to read through the article more carefully, and have have made a number of punctuation and typo fixes in the text. I also picked up numerous prose issues from the first two substantive sections, which is as far as I've got as yet:-
• Early life
  • "gold rush" should be two words

• • Someone has fixed this for me. It certainly should be two words and it is now

• • "Growing up on Newry St in Fitzroy North, Ponsford attended the nearby Alfred Crescent School, which stood beside the Edinburgh Gardens." I believe a better construction would be: "Ponsford grew up on Newry St in Fitzroy North, and attended the nearby Alfred Crescent School, which stood beside the Edinburgh Gardens."

• • Much better wording, thanks. I have an unfortunate tendency to start sentences with "Running", "Growing", "Hitting" etc.

• • Second paragraph - two successive sentences start with "Ponsford..." The second could be "He..."

• • I was concerned that the pronoun would be confusing here with the reference to Best in the previous sentence. However it has been reworded.

• • It would be better to say, simply, that he had "the best batting and bowling averages...", rather than "the highest batting and the lowest bowling average". Not only would this save words, it would clarify his achievement for the benefit of non-cricketing readers.

• • Agreed

• • The word "trainer" is generally used to describe someone who "trains" people, rather than someone who does training. This could be resolved by saying: "...Ponsford trained enthusiastically, running to school..." etc

• • Agreed, much better

• Early record-breaking
  • The word "resultant" in the first sentence is superfluous, and doesn't sit well with "As a result...", which starts the next sentence.

fixed YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Not sure about "happened to be". A straightforward "was" would do.

fixed YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "By the 1918–19 season, Ponsford would top the club batting averages with an average of 33." Fair enough, but what about 1917-18? Presumably he did nothing spectacular, but maybe improved a little? It would help the narrative if you could say something like: "After a steady improvement in 1917-18, in the 1918-19 season Ponsford topped the club batting averages with an average of 33. That season he also topped the bowling averages..." etc.

• • I agree that some idea of his progression would be desireable, however the source does not mention it his performance in 1917-18 at all. The club records are not kept online anywhere that I can find.
    • Would it be possible to begin the sentence: "His improvement was such that, in 1918–19, Ponsford topped..." etc. That gives an idea of progression. Brianboulton (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "...supposedly at the expense of Armstrong." Is there any doubt about it?

• • I thought there was, but a re-read of the source is pretty definite about it "Bill took the place in the team of Warwick Armstrong ..." "supposed" has been removed.

• • "...despite batting at number eight" makes sense to cricket-wise people, but not to others. You could help them by saying "low in the order, at number eight."

• • The concept of "batting order" is a difficult for even baseball fans to understand. Added your suggested wording

• • Surely, the world record should have a precise date, rather than just "the following season"?

• • Date added for the match. Ponsford began his innings on 3 Feb, 4 Feb was a rest day and he passed the record on 5 Feb.

• • Again, only the cricket-wise will know that 305* means 305 not out. (I assume that there is a link available to explain "not out")
  • "...some intrigue in the popular press..." Intrigue? are you sure this is the best word - it implies plotting?

fixed YellowMonkey

(cricket calendar poll!) 02:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

• • "Selected for his first Sheffield Shield match against South Australia, Ponsford—still batting down the order—made 108." Again, a date is necessary (you don't even give the season, here). Also, comma required after "Shield match"? And could you say "batting down the order, at number x"?

• • Done -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I will continue as soon as I can. Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

These are my final comments on the prose. Most are pretty minor, and all are easily fixable:-

• Test debut and more records
  • "It was in the 1924–25 season that Ponsford broke into international cricket." Verbose, could be "Ponsford broke into international cricket in the 1924–25 season"

• • Now addressed

• • More superfluous wording; "he was called into the team for the first Test against England..." Why not "he was selected for the first Test against England"?

• • Now addressed

• • Tate's bowling should only be described as "brilliant" within a specific quotation, otherwise it reads as POV

• The source uses the term "baffling". I have used this in inverted commas. Let me know if this is unacceptable. A little off-topic, I find it interesting that we are a lot less strict about POV verbs like "struggled" than we are about POV adjectives like "brilliant".

• I think the point is that there are degrees of "struggle", whereas "brilliant" is absolute. You can have a bit of a struggle; you can't be a bit briliant." Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I think the link on "strike" should be made specific to "farm the strike"

• • Agreed, the entire term is now linked to List of cricket terms#F

• • "He added 128..." - added to what? I presume you mean he scored 128.

• • Yep, that is puzzling. Fixed.

• • I think the idiom is "chosen for" rather than "chosen in"

• • "Chosen in" must be an Australianism, now changed.

• • "thirty-six" requires a hyphen (or write it as 36)

• • Really? How ugly! Nevertheless WP:MOSNUM agrees so now changed

• • Again, an asterisk is used to signify a not-out innings

• • I will deal with these as a group/

• • "In his next match, against New South Wales, Ponsford again rewrote the record books. Ponsford scored 352 runs, 334 of them in a single day, and helped Victoria to an innings total of 1,107, which remains the highest team total in first-class cricket, breaking Victoria's own record set four years earlier." Can you clarify the actual record that Ponsford individually claimed? As previously, if this was a world record, I think the dates should be given.

• • As far as I can tell, he did not break an individual record of any consequence in that innings. This sentence must obviously be misleading if an individual record can be read into it. Will think about better wording.

• • "In a remarkable season..." POV again

• • And another adjective is brutally murdered removed ... :-)

• • "he scored 452 at an average of 56.50, second only to his opening partner Bill Woodfull." Second in aggregate, or average, or both?

• • Both, now added

• Struggles and success
  • The dreaded asterisk again

• • To be dealt with as a group

• • "However, he was left to rue some ill-chosen words in the Test series." Awkward phrasing, but also carries a strong whiff of editorial opinion/journalistic comment. More neutral, encyclopedic phrasing would be: "Before the Test series started, Ponsford had declared..." etc

• • Reworded per your suggestion, but I am concerned that we have lost some of the contrast between Ponsford's words, i.e. "not fast" with the subsequent happenings, i.e. dismissed cheaply and a broken hand.

• • "standout" as adjective or noun is one word. You could say "The outstanding performer..."

• • Much better, thanks

• • "In a change..." is redundant wording

• • Yep, removed.

• • "Ponsford and Jackson started the summer well, their 172 run partnership in the second innings took Australia to a 10 wicket victory." Ungrammatical. In the second innings of what? Do you mean: "Ponsford and Jackson started the Test series well, their 172 run partnership in the second innings taking Australia to a 10-wicket victory in the first Test."?

• • Reworded per your suggestion. A query; do you think a hyphen is necessary in "10-wicket victory"? It does not seem right to me

• • "Ponsford was reunited with Woodfull for the remaining Tests..." Clarify was reunited with Woodfull as his opening partner for the remaining Tests.

• • Clarified

• Bodyline
  • Use of the adjective "intimidatory" is POV unless, again, it is within a cited quote.

• • Reworded but I am tempted to argue that even Jardine would have agreed that Bodyline was based around intimidation. Indeed that was the entire point of the tactic. The word "intimidatory" does not have any particular moral colour and to appears to be a simple statement of fact.

• • "After failing again in the fourth Test, Ponsford was again dropped." I would drop the first "again".

• • Agreed, changed

• • "While the manager of the England team, Pelham Warner, thought that Ponsford "met the fast-leg theory in plucky and able style"[70], Ponsford developed a habit of turning his back on the rising ball and, if hit, glowering at the affected bowler." This need some reorganising, as the second clause is not a natural consequence of the earlier "While" clause. I suggest: "Ponsford developed a habit of turning his back on the rising ball and, if hit, glowering at the affected bowler. While the manager of the England team, Pelham Warner, thought that Ponsford "met the fast-leg theory in plucky and able style,[70] this behaviour was criticised by the British cricket writer, R. C. Robertson-Glasgow."[71]

• • Thanks, much better wording

• Triumph and retirement
  • "The partnership was the highest ever in Test cricket and is still the highest fourth wicket partnership for Australian." Clarify that the partnership was the highest ever in Test cricket at the time. Also, "still" needs specifying: "...and as of 2009 is still..." etc. And shouldn't the last word of the sentence be "Australia"?

• • All done

• • "Again Wisden was complimentary; they said..." Wisden isn't a "they" I suggest: "Again Wisden was complimentary, saying..."

• • done

• • Another missing word: "...and the press had speculated that Ponsford succeed him as captain of Victoria" - would succeed him

• • Oops, now fixed

• • I would qualify the young as "relatively young". Also you have the age as a numeric 34 here, but written out as "thirty four" (without hyphen) in the quote which follows. Is this in accordance with the original?

• • The quote and the earlier mention are now both numeric. The source uses numerals. --

• • What is the source of Mailey's opinion?

• • The same as the following sentence. Now made crystal clear

• Personal life
  • "at the end of his five year contract" - with the newspaper? Specify.

• • Yep, the newspaper. Specified.

• • Rather than saying "Keith Murdoch himself", you need to say who Keith Murdoch was. The link article is no use here - it's dreadful.

• • The article on Murdoch is very disappointing for an Australian of his historic prominence. The source tends to assume, like I did, that people are familiar with him. There is a mention of him as Editor-in-chief earlier in the book and a ref to his son further down the page.

• • The following sentence needs attention: "In 1956, Ponsford unsuccessfully applied for the position of club secretary—effectively chief executive officer and one of the most prestigious positions in Australian cricket[90]—Test cricketer Ian Johnson was appointed after the retirement of Vernon Ransford." The rule with mdashes is that if the section within the dashes is ignored, what's left should still form a complete sentence, which is not the case here. ("In 1956, Ponsford unsuccessfully applied for the position of club secretary Test cricketer Ian Johnson was appointed after the retirement of Vernon Ransford.") I suggest that you do away with the tiresome dashes and split the sentence. Thus: "In 1956 Ponsford unsuccessfully applied for the position of club secretary, effectively its chief executive officer and one of the most prestigious positions in Australian cricket[90]. However, in the event Test cricketer Ian Johnson was appointed, following the retirement of Vernon Ransford."

• • Reworded, along much the same lines as your suggestion.

• Baseball: "By 1919"? or "In 1919"?

• Changed to "In". I guess I wanted to get across the sense that by 1919 he was good enough for selection for the Vic. team. Rereading the source, that sense is not conveyed and would be my invention.

• Legacy and statistical analysis
  • Diagram: what do the blue dots signify?

• Sorted. SGGH ^ping! 15:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for that!

• • In first-class cricket, Ponsford scored 13,819 runs at an average of 65.18, the fifth highest average of any player." Needs a bit more: "...as of 2009 the fifth highest complete career average of any player, worldwide."

• • Added

• • Sudden adoption of bullet points for a two-item list should be avoided.

• • I agree and would not normally do this but I am struggling with an elegant manner of listing these two records in the prose. Ideas and suggestions from anyone gratefully accepted

• • The first mention of Ray Robinson should introduce him properly: "Cricket writer Ray Robinson", not just "Robinson"

• • Hmm, how did I miss this.

• • "Perhaps the greatest honour bestowed on the Victorian batsman was the renaming of the Northern Stand of the Melbourne Cricket Ground as the "Ponsford Stand" in 1986." This reads as editorial opinion. The neutral version might be: "In 1986 the Northern Stand of the Melbourne Cricket Ground was renamed the "Ponsford Stand."

• • Done. I feel that Ponsford considered this his greatest honour and the source hints at this but never actually comes out and says it. Certainly the author of the source feels it was Ponsford's greatest honour (and I agree, even Collingwood has an MBE :-)) but that doesn't seem particularly relevant to me.

• Style and personality: The Bradman quote doesn't seem quite complete. Does it need a question mark?

• • Yes and there was a slight misquote, both now fixed. Thanks.

• On a separate matter, there could well be issues raised with images, particularly the cigarette card representation of Ponsford in the final section. But I am no image expert so I will leave that question to others.

• The cig card has been deleted, unfortunately. This is a shame as it was a good image. Alas, it appears that someone, somewhere, owns the copyright.

On the whole, the article is admirably comprehensive and will be well received by those interested in cricket history. If the prose issues can be sorted out, and image questions resolved, it will be a handsome addition to the FA canon.

Brianboulton (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now started on addressing your issues. Thanks very much for all your time and effort, I could not have had a more thorough review. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: Please let me know when you feel all my points have been answered, so that I can revise my oppose. Brianboulton (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Has Brian been notified yet? It looks like attempts have been made to address all of his concerns. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Leaning to support (see updated comment below): I appreciate that much work has gone into addressing my concerns, and have struck the oppose. I have one outstanding issue: the beginning of the article remains weak. WP:LEAD says that "an article should begin with a short declarative sentence answering two questions - what or who is he subject of the article, and why is this subject notable?" The first sentence here simply says that Ponsford was an Australian cricketer; his notability is not really defined until the third and fourth sentences. I think this could be addressed by amending the opening along the following lines:

"William Harold Ponsford MBE (19 October 1900 – 6 April 1991) was an Australian cricketer, the only player to twice break the world record for the highest individual score in first-class cricket. Predominantly playing as an opening batsman, he formed a successful and long-lived partnership opening the batting for Victoria and Australia with his friend Bill Woodfull. Aside from Brian Lara,..." etc

If you can amend as above – or otherwise define his ability in the opening sentence – I will be happy to give full support to this impressive article. Brianboulton (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Amended as per your excellent suggestion (with a small change). Thanks very much for all your advice, the article is much improved as a result. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 13:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: My final concern having been addressed, I am happy to switch to full support. I hope there will be more from this stable (how about Dainty Ironmonger?) Brianboulton (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose due to an image concern: File:Woodfull&Ponsford.jpg: while indisputable that the photo was created in the 1930–34 period, its authorship (and hence copyright) is in question. No source is provided for verification either. As stated in the article, the Tests were played in either England or Australia. Depending on photographer and first publishing of the photo, the image would either fall under United Kingdom or Australian copyright. If Aussie, fine and dandy as it is in Aussie public domain. If UK's laws apply, however, a 70 year pma (since death of author) is necessitated, which places this photo almost certainly to be still in UK copyright. Jappalang (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to tell from the image alone if it was taken in Aust. or the UK. (An aside, if it were English players walking onto the field, it would have been immediately obvious from their caps, which were different at home and abroad) Phanto282, who had an ability to find the most wonderful images (like this one), found these at a time when many of us were not so punctillious about images as we are now. Unfortunately he has now left the project. Given it looks likely to be deleted fairly shortly, unless someone can identify where the match was played, I am willing to remove it. I have found (a very much inferior) replacement that was definitely taken in Australia (the players are wearing VCA caps) if this image meets WP image policy. Thanks for your help on straightening out the images on Commons. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Woodfull and Ponsford image question looks to be trending towards feeling the photograph was taken in the UK. Subsequently, I have removed the image. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 13:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Remaining images are verifiably in public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 14:19, 19 June 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 23:01, 20 June 2009 [45].

---

Otto Becher

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it now meets the criteria. A senior officer in the Royal Australian Navy, Becher's career included distinguished service in both the Second World War and Korean War. This article has been passed as both a Good article and WikiProject Military history A-Class. Many thanks go to Ian Rose for contributing the vast majority of information on Becher's service in the Korean War and Jappalang for providing some useful assistance in relation to images. Any and all comments welcome! Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Should ranks be capitalised? In the intro for example, ranks are lower-case (eg rear admiral), while in the info box, it is upper-case (Rear Admiral).
  • Typically, ranks should not be capitalised unless attached to someone's name. However, I think the infobox is an exception as it would look unusual to have the rank in lower-case there. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• In the third paragraph on the Second World War, it mentions the Napier was attacked by a formation of aircraft. Can you elaborate on type/nationality?
  • Clarified as Axis. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I meant were they Italian or German? What type of aircraft were they (i.e. bombers or fighters) if that information is available? It seems they were German Ju-88s from the Navy.gov.au link. Can you clarify? Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Also information at Gill, George Hermon (1957) p360. Sorry to be so pedantic about it, btw. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
      • That's where I was just about to look. ;-) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think that my grandfather would have served under him while on HMAS Vengeance...I'll have to ask him! Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting fact! If he did, I wonder what his opinion of Becher was. Thanks for the review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. At least for now, this leaves too many questions unanswered in my mind. I don't think it should take to long to fill in the details though. I also have a few writing style issues, but they may just in be US vs. Commonwealth English, I'm not quite sure. Cool3 (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Comments. Most of the issues that I raised have been addressed, so I'm no longer in the "oppose" column, but I think the article still needs work. I still think that certain sections leave unanswered questions about Becher, and I'm not blown away by the prose quality. I think the article could do with a copyedit and finding a few more sources would be a very good thing. Cool3 (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • EyeSerene has kindly accepted to copyedit the article. In regards to sources, I have not been able to find anything extra, but am attempting to access to the books you recommended on the article's talk page. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Copyedit underway as Bryce says - please be patient though, because I'm squeezing it in around other things :P EyeSerene^talk 20:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Just to note, EyeSerene has now completed a thorough and much appreciated copyedit of the article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cool3

"Born in Western Australia," I'm not Australian, but this sounds a little to vague for me. Why not put the name of the city in the lead there? Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC) "as officer-in-charge of the gunnery school at HMAS Cerberus" Is there a reason this doesn't link to HMAS Cerberus, Victoria? Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC) "he filled several staff positions as well as commanded HMAS Melbourne and HMAS Vengeance. " This may be a Commonwealth vs. American English issue, but that sentence appears to be grammatically incorrect. I believe it should be either "and commanded" or "as well as commanding". Truthfully, I do not see a problem here, but I will review if anyone else objects. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC) "he was posted to the United Kingdom for further training with the Royal Navy from September that year." Further training in what? Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC) "Posted for duties at the shore establishment HMAS Cerberus in Victoria," It's rather unclear when this was. Was it immediately following completion of the gunnery school? Also what were the nature of his duties? Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC) "Becher later completed two years aboard HMAS Canberra as her intelligence officer" Again, this is vague on the time. When is later? I think with the addition from the above, it is okay now. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC) " Commended for his "daring, resource and devotion" during the operation, Becher was subsequently awarded the Distinguished Service Cross." Any idea what he did that was daring? Sadly, that is the most I was able to add here. All of the sources I have seen just state it was for his service during the Namsos Campaign. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Most unfortunate. I've looked through the newspapers I have access to for more information on this and found nothing, but if you have access to an Australian newspaper archive from the period, there's a chance you might be able to find a description of his exploits there. Just a thought. Cool3 (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I had a bit of a search around, but couldn't find anything. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC) "Inter-bellum and Korean War". So far as I know, the term interbellum is generally used to refer to the period between the two World Wars, making its use here rather confusing. The term "interbellum" refers to a period between wars, so it is still applicable in this case though is probably more common to be used between the two world wars. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC) You're right that it can refer to the period between any two wars, but in this case I find it a bit confusing, given that he was around in the period between the World Wars. Also, should it be hyphenated? Cool3 (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I don't think it should be hyphenated, as I have typically seen it in full. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC) In that case, I would suggest dehyphenating (writing as one word) interbellum in the section heading. Cool3 (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Whoops! I didn't even notice I had done that. Fixed. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC) "His service aboard the aircraft carrier lasted for two years" I assume this means the Sydney, but it's a bit confusing as no previous reference is made to the fact that the Sydney was a carrier. Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC) "when he relieved Captain Alan McNicoll as commander of the destroyer HMAS Warramunga on 28 July, which had been selected for service in the Korean War." This may again be Commonwealth vs. American, but I feel that this grammatically incorrect. So far as I know, you need to position the clause right next to HMAS Warramunga (i.e., "as commander of the destroyer HMAS Warramunga, which had been selected for service in the Korean War, on 28 July" or "On 28 July, when he relieved Captain Alan McNicoll as commander of the HMAS Warramunga, which had been selected for service in the Korean War." I don't really see any issues here. But will review if anyone else objects. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I don't see it as a big deal, but Cool's second rendering of the sentence does seem a bit better than what's there now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Tweaked. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC) "Warramunga was to be attached to a force of five Royal Navy destroyers led by a captain, making it expedient to have the Australian ship commanded by an officer of lower rank" This seems to better belong in the paragraph above. Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC) "In the event, his "well-earned" promotion came through as scheduled on 31 December." Does this mean that the commander of the Bataan kept quiet? Or did he talk and the board didn't care? I think the commander of Bataan kept quiet. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Yep, not stated explicitly in the source, it just assumes the CO of Bataan kept mum - hence I simply noted the fact that his promotion wasn't delayed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Ah, I see. It's always rather frustrating when the sources do that, but I guess given what they say we're doing the best we can. "Noted for his "courage, skill and determination",[27] the recommendation for Becher to be awarded the Distinguished Service Order was approved" This may again be US vs. Commonwealth, but that seems off "Noted..." modifies Becher but precedes recommendation which is also the subject of the sentence. I believe this needs rephrasing. Again, don't see much wrong with this, but will review if insisted upon. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Again, not a big deal, but how would it read if "Noted for" was changed to "Noting"? This refers to the recommendation, which is what's being approved. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Noting would work just fine. Cool3 (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC) "Becher became subject to controversy following the collision of HMA Ships Voyager and Melbourne in February that year" Did he get into any sort of trouble over his actions? Do you have any more details on the controversy? No trouble. It basicly became controversal as the Royal Commissioner placed a degree of blame on Commander Robertson for the incident, which is believed to have stemmed from Becher's statement and his talk with Robertson. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC) " Becher accepted the position of Director-General of Recruiting for the Australian Military from 1966 until 1969, although he opposed conscription in the belief that it eroded professional standards." This confuses me. Director-General of Recruiting sounds to me like he would be in charge of finding volunteers, but the second half of the sentence makes it seem that he was involved in conscription. Can you provide more details on what his position actually involved? Conscription was present in Australia from 1951 to 1972. Have clarified this. Thanks for the additional info here, too, mate, I appreciate it. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • The third paragraph in the "Second World War" section talks about the Napier but makes absolutely no reference to Becher's role in the events discussed? Do you have any specifics on what he was doing during/as a part of these events?
    • Again, no, not really. There is little available on his earlier service. All I have is that he served on Napier in the Mediterranean. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Similarly, the 5th paragraph discusses the Robert J. Walker in detail, the Quickmatch some, and Becher not at all. What was his role in these events?
    • Becher was commanding Quickmatch during the incident, which is alreay stated. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Was his doing anything specific (I imagine the sources may not say, which is ok)? Also, was he the senior officer out of the ships? Cool3 (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
        • All the sources specify is that he was in command of Quickmatch. I actually don't really know who was the senior officer was, but I will have a look to see if I can find out. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Following a search, I think Becher was the senior officer on scene. However, I cannot locate a source that directly states this, so I cannot include this in the article without voyaging into original research. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "On 25 June 1945, Becher ceased his command of HMAS Quickmatch and returned to Australia," Any idea why?
    • Basicly, what I can gather is that it was decided he be sent for staff duties. Nothing really specific. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "known as the 'Murphy Method', it involved wrapping messages around potatoes and throwing them from one ship to the other." Who was Murphy and why was the method named for him? Did Becher have any role in its invention?
    • I'll have to ask Ian on this one, as he added this snippet. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Heh, I'm not sure how you could, or indeed if you should attempt to, explain this in the text or even a footnote - in fact don't even try as it's not explained in the source so would be OR to do so in this article...! It's just a bit of esoteria derived from the fact that potatoes are particularly associated in the Anglo-Australian mind with Ireland, and Murphy is a particularly common Irish surname, hence the 'Murphy method' for this little practice... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Great article, I look forward to supporting in the future.
  • Thanks for the review, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - with the caveat of my interest in the Korean War section, as Bryce kindly noted. Supported this at ACR and happy to support again now - this is detailed, well-written and carefully researched. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - I'm spotting some problems in sample sections, like excess use of "in order to" when just "to" will suffice, and dangling modifiers ("Promoted to acting rear admiral on 3 January 1959, his rank ...") that suggest further examination of the prose is needed. Also, I happened to notice the term "Chinaman" which is considered offensive by modern dictionaries. This may be a case where the source does not reflect current language usage. --Laser brain (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the tweaks and comments. As noted above, the article is currectly being copyedited, so any prose issues should be ironed out soon. As to the use of "Chinaman", I was unaware it was considered offensive and have tweaked it to instead read "Chinese person". Cheers, Abraham (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, I think just "Chinese" would do the trick, "Chinese person" sounds a bit clumsy... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - This is really quite good, and I couldn't find much need for my services as a copyeditor. A few points that might merit attention, notwithstanding my support:
  • Though I'm not really very familiar with naval articles, there seems to be a fair bit of moderately specialized terminology here ("working-up exercises", "forming up", "made substantive", etc.). If possible, these should be wikilinked or converted into plain(er) language.
  • The only remotely substantive change I made was dealing with the section on Warramunga running aground. The way it was worded before had a bit of a subject disagreement ("Becher's only option being to wait for the rising tide to float her off. She did so..."). It's now grammatically correct, but might not be keeping with the best elements of style for naval articles, so you might want to check my work.
    • Thanks for that; it all reads well. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Well deserved" is in quotes, but there's no indication as to who was calling his promotion well deserved. This should be remedied.
    • I have a feeling that when I wrote it there was only one citation for the entire passage, being O'Neill - he's the author who is describing the promotion as "well deserved". I'm not wed to "well deserved" remaining if it seems confusing so will leave it up to Bryce... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I do not particularly mind either way if it does create confusion. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's it. Overall, excellent work. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review and tweaks. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "Director of Personal Services" - Just double checking that that's the correct title, and not a typo of "Personnel", which would have been my guess.
    • Mine too, now you mention it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Rechecking the source, it appears to be "Personal", although I do agree that "Personnel" would make more sense. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. It is looking good now. --Laser brain (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support, but weakly for now. Steve ^T • C I was wavering between that and a very weak oppose, but this is a largely fine article that's well-researched and mostly well-written. A few prose bumps get in the way of an unequivocal support, but they're minor points and feel they shouldn't hold up promotion as long as they're taken care of:
  • "Promoted to rear admiral in 1959, he served as Flag Officer Commanding Australian Fleet from 1964 to 1965..." Judging from the article body and the succession box, "Flag Officer Commanding Australian Fleet" is deliberate and I assume the correct usage, but it does read very oddly for someone unfamiliar with the topic.
    • This was the name of the actual position (yes, I know it is oddly named ;-)). Sadly, there exists on article on the position as of yet, but it has been renamed a couple of times and is now known as Commander Australian Fleet. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Warramunga formed part of Australia's contribution to the United Nations forces engaged in the Korean War, and Becher was promoted to captain and awarded the Distinguished Service Order while carrying out operations in Korean waters." The repetition ("and ... and") is more or less OK, but would removing the first one and its preceding comma in favour of a semi-colon be the better option?
    • Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "He spent two years at Cerberus before, in March 1944, being given command of the Q class destroyer HMAS Quickmatch." The "in March 1944" is a possibly unnecessary speedbump. Would the sentence be any worse if it read, "He spent two years at Cerberus before being given command of the Q class destroyer HMAS Quickmatch in March 1944." Unsure.
    • Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Becher was promoted to acting sub-lieutenant, the rank being made substantive the following March." The noun + -ing often reads oddly, as it does here. In this context, "being" is a gerund, so the possessive would usually be required, though here it would read even more oddly ("rank's being") and the better option is to rework the sentence to avoid it.
    • Tweaked. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Becher attended the long course at the Royal Navy's gunnery school..." Without context, "long course" doesn't really mean anything to those unfamiliar with the topic.
    • Changed to "an advanced course". Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Inconsistent use of comma after "In [date]" introductions (e.g. "In September 1928, Becher"; "on 7 January 1935 Becher"). One or t'other, but remain consistent.
    • I typically use a comma, but some were changed or not used in the copy-edit. Will make consistant use of the comma. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps go through the article once more to look for redundant words and phrases. Example: "Becher married Valerie Chisholm Baird in a ceremony at St Michael's Anglican Church in Vaucluse, New South Wales; the couple would have they had three sons." In this example, the first ("in a ceremony") is definitely implicit and can be removed safely. The second is more subjective; an argument could be made that "would have" is the most appropriate because it describes events in his life subsequent those that the section covers, though as his personal life isn't mentioned again until the last line of the article, the simpler wording feels sufficient.
    • Will go through. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Some mild overlinking: "England", "Scotland", etc. Oh, and potatoes? :D
    • Have to cover all bases. ;-) Delinked some of these. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "having taking taken 705 soldiers on board"
    • Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Another redundancy example: "she would spend spent" Very minor, but an example of where things could be slightly improved throughout.
    • Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "on the night of 24/25 July" I think per the Manual of Style, "on the night of 24–25 July" (endash, not slash).
    • I was informed by another editor that per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates the slash should be utilised. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Fair enough! I'm embarrassed to say I never spotted that before. Steve ^T • C 13:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Redundancy example: "the fleet opened a bombardment on the harbour installations." Would "the fleet bombarded the harbour installations" retain the same meaning?
    • Yep. Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "and HMA Ships Quickmatch, Kiama and Yandra were directed" Lowercase "s" on "ships"? Or is this common usage?
    • I think it is typically the capitalised "S". The ships' titles are HMAS (His/Her Majesty's Australian Ship), which is I formal title which warrents a proper noun. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Given different usages in the world's navies, the ranks used throughout the article could perhaps use more targeted wikilinking. For example, Commander#Royal Australian Navy rather than Commander, unless you feel the overview of the subject in the leads of these articles is necessary for context.
    • No problem with this; no doubt more informative then just the general link. :) There are some I cannot do this to however, but the ones I could I have. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Any chance of doing Alan McNicoll and Alan Scott-Moncrieff favours and turning those redlinks into a less intrusive blue?
    • I am currently working on an article of McNicoll, which should be up soon. I do not know much about Scott-Moncrieff however, though I will see if I can find any sources. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Following his retirement, Becher accepted the position of Director-General of Recruiting for the Australian armed forces from 1966 until 1969; a period during which conscription was in effect." That's a fragment after the semi-colon; it should be able to stand as a complete grammatical sentence. Simply replacing the semi-colon with a comma might fix it.
    • Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Minister of Defence Allen Fairhall asked Becher to find enough volunteers to fill the armed forces, and although Becher believed that conscription eroded professional standards he found this task difficult, given that the military was "competing with industry, and the country was short of labour." Nope, I can't fathom what that "although" is doing there. It doesn't float, as there's no logical link between the two statements that would require it (he thought conscription eroded standards and he found the task difficult). You can probably lose the last comma too (before "and the country"), as it would resolve a very slight ambiguity.
    • Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Survived by his wife and their three sons, he was cremated." There doesn't seem to be quite enough of a connection between the two statements. The survival of his wife and sons would fit more logically as part of the previous sentence about his death, though further rework might be required to avoid a stubby final sentence ("He was cremated"); perhaps see if you can find out where the disposal of his remains took place.
    • I have been looking for this per the request of another editor, but have found very little thus far. If I cannot find anything in the next few days I will remove the cremation mention. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
      • That he was cremated is probably better in than out, even if you can't find any more information; otherwise, it'll beg the question, "He died... and then what?" Steve ^T • C 13:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Overall, nice work; attention to the above points (by amendment or rebuttal—I'm open to being wrong) would make it a worthy featured article. All the best, Steve ^T • C 10:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your thorough review; it is much appreciated. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Struck "weak" part of support. Nice work. Steve ^T • C 13:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support with one remaining issue: " The discussion became public knowledge, and led to suggestions of complicity." should really be changed. Complicity implies that he was complicit in the crash (which obviously is untrue), a more specific term like "a coverup" (if accurate) would be much more accurate and would be more elegant. Cool3 (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, mate, done. Two sources used "collusion", so I have instead replaced "complicity" with "conspiracy". Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
    • One more very small point. In "with HMAS Nizam for the Mediterranean Sea", Mediterranean Sea links to Battle of the Mediterranean. I believe this violates the guideline on piped links. Not sure quite how you want to fix it, but I think the sentence should be changed to make things a bit more clear; you miss the fact that there was a battle going on if you don't click the link. Cool3 (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support This article meets the FA criteria, though it would be good if there was some information on what his role on Sydney was. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The one remaining—gunnery—doesn't have an appropriate article that defines the term in the context used. The meaning is likely clear enough without the link, but if the nominator feels one is necessary, perhaps its Wiktionary page would be appropriate? Alternatively, something could be added to the gun or Naval artillery articles to make those a relevant link target, a completely new page could be written for the term, or the disambiguation page could be tweaked to make it clear that the term can refer to the science of guns and gunfire. Steve ^T • C 19:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to think an interwiki to wiktionary would be best. To those unfamiliar with the term, I can see it being slightly confusing, and as Steve said links to either gun or Naval artillery leave a little something to be desired. Cool3 (talk) 19:58, 20 June 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 23:01, 20 June 2009 [46].

---

Fantasy Black Channel

Nominator(s): Rafablu88 (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. I have followed the template from the three other FA electronic albums, namely Arular, Supernature and especially Made in the Dark. What's more, the article attained GA without any glitches whatsoever. So, here we are... my first FAC, so please be gentle (or constructively merciless). As a final note, I would encourage any willing editor to just be bold and edit the article if they feel they can improve its quality to FA. I will handle any other advice accordingly. Thanks in advance. Rafablu88 (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

RECAP: I thought I'd sum up the situation so far. There have been 1 2 3 4 5 supports, 1 slight positive lean (with regards to sources) and 1 oppose (whose contents have been noted and article material changed accordingly). Rafablu88 (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Sceptre's comments were noted and quotes successfully merged within the article. User's mentioned review has not been undertaken. User eventually copy-edited the article and SUPPORTED. Rafablu88 (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Awg1010's OBJECTION was noted and material changed. User eventually SUPPORTED.
3. Otterathome's comments were noted and material changed. Metacritic qualifies for WP:EL as site contains accessible, in context, functional, neutral, accurate amount of detail (i.e. professional statistics). DABs were fixed and sources added to cover art. Major chart markets were also added. Lead citations were kept as they immediately follow sourced material. User has not commented further.
4. Timmeh's advice was noted and material found about album title conception. User has not commented further. User eventually SUPPORTED. Rafablu88 (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Ealdgyth's sources comments were noted and followed. Third-party citations for Drowned in Sound (Reuters) and Gigwise (Absolute Radio and Prefix Magazine) were found thus showing reliability as per his own criteria "Third-party publications from reliable sources that support the site as a self-published source" at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. Click Music's and Subba Cultcha's (who were only used for interview quotes) writing rules and editors were found as per his own criteria "A page on the site that gives their rules for submissions that indicate fact-checking and editorial oversight" at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. User leans SLIGHTLY RELIABLE but his guidelines have been fulfilled.
6. Giants2008's grammar advice was noted and followed, including paraphrasing a considerable amount of quotes. The remaining ones are well integrated in the text. User has not commented further but has noted that he's not an expert on the subject so cannot decide since the sources have been left at editors' discretion by Ealdgyth.
7. Karanacs's OBJECTION was noted and material changed. User has not commented further. Rafablu88 (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Jappalang's OBJECTION was noted and material changed. User eventually dropped his case. Rafablu88 (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Dabomb87's comment were noted and material changed. User agreed with changes, did a comprehensive copy-edit and SUPPORTED. Rafablu88 Rafablu88 (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Laserbrain's provisional SUPPORT was noted and material changed. Rafablu88 (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Nominator support is assumed. Please don't bold the words "support" or "oppose" - those should only be bolded by reviewers in their own comments. This is so the delegates don't get confused. Karanacs (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Apologies for this. Rafablu88 (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: will review in a few hours. Just a tip: if you have long quotes, consider using {{blockquote}} (if you have them). Sceptre ^(talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I had a cursory view following your comment and can only find one long-ish quote at the end of Origins and conception, but I feel that it is nicely merged in the text. WP:MOSQUOTE says "more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines". I have a quote box for this purpose in the article in the vein of Modern Life Is Rubbish. There are a few other long quotes but they are critics' views so I doubt they warrant a blockquote, plus their length is less than what mosquote says. Looking forward to your review. Rafablu88 (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support: I think the article is good enough to be featured, having had a go at improving some of the prose. I may continue to tighten some wording over the next few days (read: weeks) but I think that it passes the FAC as-is. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and cheers for the c/e. Rafablu88 (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think more edits probably won't be needed now to be honest. Dabomb87 and I have edited, tweaked, and pretty much ironed everything out. But if you see anything else then by all means change it. Rafablu88 (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

*Object: Article includes File:HeartbeatLOTP.ogg a 30 second sample of a 3 minute and 2 second song. Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline#Necessary components states "...the length should be no longer than 10 percent of the song's original length or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter." (emphasis added.) So if the original song is 03:02 = 182 seconds * 0.10 = 18.2 seconds as the maximum allowable Non-free use.Awg1010 (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out. Noted and changed accordingly. New sample is 18 secs. Please return to amend preceding comment. Rafablu88 (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that the ten-percent/thirty-second fair use rule is a debunked standard and shouldn't be in a Wikipedia guideline. Just use as much, or as little, as necessary just to prove your point. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That's OK. 18 secs still shows what I wanted, i.e. style, genre, production, and a bit of vocal delivery. Rafablu88 (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Well now that there can be no question of fair use of File:HeartbeatLOTP.ogg I am very impressed with the overall article. It is comprehensive, and well formed. IMO this is worth FA. Awg1010 (talk)

Thanks. Rafablu88 (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Otterathome (talk)

1. Do the Metacritic and MusicBrainz links really comply with WP:EL? Plus they are in the references.
2. You have 3 dab links and 1 redirect. See dab links tool.
3. You don't strictly need citations in the lead.
4. Source of File:Fantasy black channel.jpg is missing. From website/scan?--Otterathome (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
5. There are only three chart positions little, it was not released in many places?

Right, here we go:

1. Metacritic and MusicBrainz does indeed comply with WP:EL. Metacritic is an exhaustive database that provides either information not provided elsewhere and gives original collated data. It assigns a normalised rating and collated data from notable publications, essential to ascertaining the level of critical acclaim whilst MusicBrainz gives technical data that is usually only found by purchasing the physical material (CD).
2. DABs sorted.
3. Citations can be put anywhere in the article, especially where there are quotations (hence the citation). In addition, the GA reviewer Timmeh holds the same opinion but it is fairly intuitive anyway being an encyclopedia and all.
4. Added The Hollywood Reporter source.
5. Added major chart markets (unfortunately it did not chart in any).

Extra thanks for the comments. They made me find more sources and detail with regards to release dates and such. Rafablu88 (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: I added a better MusicBrainz link to fully comply with WP:EL. Rafablu88 (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: I removed MusicBrainz from the sources and external links since more research showed Discogs to be more exhaustive about technical information. Discogs was not added to the external links because all the information it produced is recorded in the references. Instead I added album lyrics and they should definitely qualify for WP:EL. Rafablu88 (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I see a mention of the working title, but I don't see any information on how the band came up with the name Fantasy Black Channel. That would probably be useful information and should be included if you are able to find any on it. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 14:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Will trawl the archives. Back in a min. Rafablu88 (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, these guys pick out names at random and are cryptic. Most of the interviews are jokey and surreal. This is from The Skinny: "We’re really bad at names – really, really bad at it, and so we end up just picking one at random or just picking one up. Even the band name just fell together because there wasn’t anything else that sounded that good." I have added a small comment saying it was randomly chosen. Rafablu88 (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I'll support, as my concerns have been addressed, and the article now looks good enough to be a featured article. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 16:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged. Rafablu88 (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I'd like to say that all the sources look reliable to me. I would not have supported if they weren't reliable. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 15:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.drownedinsound.com
  • http://www.clickmusic.com/
  • http://www.subba-cultcha.com/article_feature.php?id=5697
  • http://www.normanrecords.com/records/89363
  • http://musicbrainz.org/release/fffbcb98-b741-4858-a412-41b2e6f75be5.html
  • http://www.gigwise.com/reviews/albums/44927/late-of-the-pier--fantasy-black-channel-parlophone-released-110808
  • http://musicremedy.com/l/Late_Of_The_Pier/album/Fantasy_Black_Channel-5889.html
• Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
• Is Noize Makes Enemies a published magazine? If so, needs to be in italics in the references

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Link titles have been changed. Also, Noize Makes Enemies is not a print publication but rather an online-only magazine trying to emulate the success of music reviewers such as NME (hence the [post]-ironic title). I believe it started as a blog but expanded to include editorial features and now incorporates both. BBC Radio use it as a source of information at times. History

1. I'm not sure how familiar you are with music publications but Drowned in Sound is one of the most eminent, recognised and cited websites, perhaps only second to Pitchfork Media for online quality especially now Stylus Magazine are defunct.
2. Click Music started in 2007 in the UK and publishes in the same vein to Drowned in Sound. They now have a fully-fledged editorial team (and swanky offices to boot I can assure you as I've been there). Also, their interview with Late of the Pier was an exclusive. Details
3. Subba-Cultcha is similar to Click Music. They also managed an exclusive interview with LOTP. I do not think they have staff writers but they do undertake peer review and have an editorial team. Details
4. Normanrecords is an independent label supplier of music, especially 7" in Leeds. I used it to show the release of the "Space and the Woods" single. Considering that single was essentially a demo and a limited edition, I could not find a more suitable internet source. It is not used for any other purposes in the article.
5. From a preceding point you will notice that MusicBrainz has been discussed. It records music information about the release date and country, the CD disc ID, an acoustic fingerprint for each track amongst other things. It is one of most exhaustive databases on the net. I have used it in the article for technical and rare release data that can only be found by purchasing the CDs themselves. I notice that the BBC has licensed them to augment their music web pages and BBC editors will also join MusicBrainz. The website is similar to Discogs. Music Brainz has been replaced with Discogs. See earlier ADDENDUM for more information.
6. Gigwise is probably as eminent to Drowned in Sound and has expanded considerably. I would consider it better than many print media. It is now Lycos Europe's UK music arm and has been nominated for the past 3 years at the Journalism and PR Awards in the UK.
7. MusicRemedy is one the oldest online music databases, starting in 2000. It is more geared towards media (videos, news etc.) instead of reviews. I have only used it to show the existence of a hidden track on the album. I could not find a more suitable internet source. It is not used for any other purposes in the article. I also notice it is in partnership with MTV.

Hope all of this helps. Rafablu88 (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for this slipping through. (We have a mare that is due to foal but she's not in any hurry to get with the program, so I'm severly lacking sleep). To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

<--- Right, well I thought I had established reliability and given enough information and links. I'm slightly confused but nonetheless, here's some extra info I could find:

1. Drowned in Sound was named Best Online Music Publication at the annual Record of the Day awards: [47] [48] Nominated at the 2007 PLUG Awards for Music Website of the Year: [49]

This doesn't really establish that they are reliable though. Ideally we'd see news organizations, etc using them as a source.Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Drowned in Sound in joint venture BSkyB, one of the most recognised media organisations in the world owned by Murdoch's News Corporation [50] (As an aside, I feel slightly insulted having to continually find sources to prove DiS's and Gigwise's reliability when it is received thought that they are two of the best music publications in the world. I think there may be a culture clash here especially if you're American and have little info on UK sources, hence asking the reliability question in the first place. Also, finding other so-called respectable media sources surely brings up the debate about their reliability too, hence starting a perpetual cycle and we don't get anywhere?) Rafablu88 (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's some more: [51] Rafablu88 (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: Apparently, BSkyB and DiS have ended their partnership although link no. 5 should be sufficient to provide third-party information on DiS's reliability. Rafablu88 (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Click Music's page that gives information for submissions that indicates fact-checking and editorial oversight (already posted!): [52]

See above. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Subba-Cultcha's page that gives information for submissions that indicates fact-checking and editorial oversight (already posted!): [53]

See above. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how your "See above" comment applies to Click Music and Subba-Cultcha. The DiS point was about awards whilst the Click Music and Subba-Cultcha was the fact that they undertake fact-checking and editorial oversight, thus fulfilling one of the criteria in the link you have provided. I would say that the links I have posted stand and prove the point, so no extra information about use by other media is required. Rafablu88 (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Normanrecords has been removed and replaced by Discogs.
2. Gigwise was also nominated for a Best Online Music Publication Record of the Day award: [54] [55] They are backed by a media company, Lycos Europe, with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight: [56]

Are they backed and owned by Lycos? Or is it just that they are a partner of Lycos'? (Which is how I read the above). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Gigwise owned by media conglomerate GiENT Entertainment Network [57]. They also, like Click Music and Subba-Cultcha, undertake fact-checking and editorial oversight. [58] Rafablu88 (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

And more: [59] Rafablu88 (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

And even more: [60] Rafablu88 (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

1. MusicRemedy removed.

Rafablu88 (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave these comments out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. I lean slightly reliable, depending on the use of the information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I should add that the sources for which no external reliable media sources were found, i.e. Click Music and Subba-Cultcha, are only used to obtain quotes from the band in the interviews they gave. The references contains little or no original research if reviewers are so inclined to conclude that they definitely need third-party proof. But, ultimately, I think the links provided showing editorial overview should be enough to fulfil the criteria. What's more, both interviews were exclusives, hence showing a certain level of notability in the two sources' work. Rafablu88 (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Few quick thoughts on the prose from me. Just know in advance that I've never heard of the band and rarely review music articles.

• Origins and conception: "Then, as Farley asserts, they branched out into listening from the last 40 years of music, including Motown and soul music." Pretty sure it should be "listening to", not "listening from".
• "with the band ultimately signing to...". This is a somewhat awkward structure. The best advice I can give you is to read this guide, which goes into detail on noun plus -ing sentence structures and how to fix them.
• "due to Parlophone giving them free rein". Again, this is the slightest bit awkward when you read it. I recommend a change to "because Parlophone gave them free rein". This also gets rid of some passive voice, which is a positive.
• Alkan's influence and production: "with Eastgate noting that...". This is similar in structure to what was in my second comment.
• "Late of the Pier usually proceeded by taking bedroom recordings into the studio where they were refined and tweaked with Allen so as to turn them 'into a more presentable package'." Comma after "studio". Rest of the punctuation usage seems good up to this point, by the way.
• Finalising the project (2008): "with Faley claiming that...". Third one like this so far. Please do a good scan for these throughout the article.
• "Subsequently, Late of the Pier took a break from the recording studio in order to embark on a headlining UK tour...". The struck words are considered "redundant" by most of the leading FAC reviewers. Whenever you see an opportunity to convey the same thoughts in one or two fewer words, it's usually worth doing. This type of prose tightening is what seperates GAs from FAs, and it causes problems for almost everyone at some point. If you have trouble with this, don't be afraid to bring in a copy-editor or two to help.
• The one general comment about the article is that it is quote-heavy. I expect to see that in a reception section, but the rest of the article is filled with them as well. Consider paraphrasing a few more things, although I admittedly don't know what is considered acceptable in music-related articles. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I removed all the -ing passive voice problems as well as "in order" on a few occasions. Some sentences were separated and "because" used more. I understand your quote comment. I tried so hard last Saturday and Sunday to remove a lot of them. I additionally removed a few just now. The Origins section has to have a few because most of the sources are interviews and so the reader has to be shown what the band themselves say about the album and the process but I still eliminated a few that could be paraphrased. As you said, the critical reception needs quotations. I removed a few in the Composition section although considering that the reviews are the only sources that explain the content of that section, it is extremely hard to paraphrase. I only left the quotes that were too left-field to paraphrase as well as the ones that made a comparison to a certain song. The balance is pretty good and the prose tight. I will again make the comparison to the other FAs Arular, Made in the Dark and Supernature with regards to quoting. Rafablu88 (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to say something about your first comment. Saying "listening to the last 40 years of music" surely insinuates that they listened to ALL the music whereas "listening from" is more selective, especially when it adds "including Motown and soul". What do you think? Rafablu88 (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Tough one. I'm still not that fond of "from" here, but see your point on the tone and scope. Is there another way to phrase it? Giants2008 (17-14) 04:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Changed it to: "listening to diverse genres from the last 40 years of music" I think it works. Rafablu88 (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose by karanacs. The prose does not currently meet 1a. I recommend an independent copyedit. I agree with Ealdgyth that the sources listed above lean slightly reliable and are probably okay.

Noting that Karanacs is on a wikibreak now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Will be tackling your points shortly. I would like to say that the article, especially the lead and the origins and conception section, has had copyedits from various users. You can check the article history. Rafablu88 (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Have read and dissected the article half a dozen times and will be able to address the remaining points later today. Rafablu88 (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Article has been copy-edited multiple times and much labour has gone into changes. I think all the points have been addressed. Will give it a cooling-off period till tomorrow and then will come back to confirm my assumption. Rafablu88 (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, now I can definitely say that all the points have been addressed to the best of my and the copy-editors' abilities. Rafablu88 (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Prose issues:
  • Watch for redundancy. Examples creative process that lasted for more than two years from its conception - don't need "from its conception", it is assumed that the process couldn't begin until it began.

DONE This has been sorted out in conjuction with some of the other points. Rafablu88 (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Don't jam two relatively unrelated thoughts into one sentence. For example, the two clauses in this sentence don't really have much to do with each other: It was eventually produced by Eastgate and DJ Erol Alkan between 2007 and 2008, peaking at number 28 on the UK Albums Chart on release I was confused when I first read it.

DONE You're right. Lead has been reworked. Checked the whole article and no similar problems were found. Rafablu88 (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Paragraphs need better flow. In the second paragraph of the lead, the article first discusses the creative process, then talks about the album's release, then goes back to the creative part - the themes, etc. That seems out of order to me.

DONE See above point. Rafablu88 (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Watch for verb agreement - why use "there would be" instead of "there was"? (first para Early ideas...)

DONE Sorted out a few occasions.

• • Sentences don't always flow well...the Alkan's influence section seems particularly bad at this.

DONE Reworked the whole section and tweaked a few cases in other sections. The copy-editors sorted the rest. Will now see if all redundancies have been addressed. Rafablu88 (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Assume that your readers are not familiar with the music. Parts of the article need more background to help those unfamiliar readers (like me!). You might want to actually describe what ideas they got by listening to Nirvana and The Prodigy (at least what type of music those two groups played)

DONE Added genres and detail. I'm surprised I missed this as later on in Lyrics and compositions I've always explained years, genres and histories properly. Rafablu88 (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand why the second paragraph of Early ideas... starts with "Consequently" - a consequence of what?

DONE Removed and explained better. Rafablu88 (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• What is/was "'Interesting Adventure'"?

??? It was the working title for the album. It says so when it is first introduced in the second paragraph of Origins and conception. One later mention assumes this. Rafablu88 (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Is there any information on who wrote the songs or how they divided up the work? (I see that this is contained much later in the article. It should be mentioned in the origins section)

DONE Added what's said later, that Eastgate was the chief creator. Rafablu88 (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Bathroom Gurgle" was immediately recorded by the new collaboration - this doesn't read well

DONE Used "subsequently". Rafablu88 (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why are so many common words linked, like limited edition and studio and music video?

DONE Removed more than a few. Rafablu88 (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think the overall tone of the article (or at least the Origins and Conception section) is just a bit off. It reads like we're getting an intimate account from the band and doesn't seem as encyclopedic as it should.

??? I'm a bit puzzled by this comment. Of course it is an intimate account from the band as it is the Origins and conception of the album, i.e. how they worked, what they thought, what they did etc. I don't know what people expect to be in it other than these facts and quotes from interviews. As per 1a, I think it is engaging and professional and totally neutral especially in a section where it is hard to be so. The rest of the sections are dispassionate and are all as per WP:ALBUMS. Are you able to give specific examples that I can work on? Rafablu88 (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Too often, the article seems to use "the band" as a person - need to differentiate between "the band" and "the band members". (it doesn't make sense to me to say "a friend of the band")

DONE Disambiguated on numerous occasions. Rafablu88 (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• The critical reception section contains a LOT of quotes. Perhaps it might be possible to paraphrase some of them?

DONE Paraphrased a lot. It should be fine now in the Critical reception section where the prose is tighter. Rafablu88 (talk) 07:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to reply or comment further. Will address the remaining comments soon. Rafablu88 (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

All done I think. Please return to amend your comments. Rafablu88 (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you implemented Karanacs's suggestion of an independent copy-edit? I support when she is satisfied. Tony (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as you can see both Sceptre and Dabomb87 have done it. Giants2008 and WesleyDodds as well as the above two users had already c/e'd before Karanacs's comments. Rafablu88 (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on non-fair use concerns (criteria 3):

• File:Fantasy black channel.jpg: other than "The two versions of the cover art are from a friend of the band members from Brighton, Jon Bergman, who they asked to do some art and, in turn, he sent them "pictures of cats and other weird things".", there is not one mention or commentary about the design or significance of the alternative cover art. The significance (#8 of WP:NFCC) of this image is disturbingly low or non-existent. The primary identification (the most common visage of the album) is more than enough; having the alternative image just to be there is plain decoration. If there are critical reviews of the secondary cover, please add it and identify in the fair use rationale why words cannot describe what the reviews say of the art.

DONE Removed. Rafablu88 (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• File:HeartbeatLOTP.ogg: a bit more explicitness in the fair use rationale here on why a 10-second clip is needed to help illustrate the words in the article please. The wording in the image's caption could be slotted in the rationale; "illustrates Erol Alkan's production aesthetic" could be more explicit in the rationale here.

  As above, can "Alkan's production aesthetic" be further clarified? What is this sample to illustrate about his aesthetic? Jappalang (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

DONE Added specific rationale and extra detail. Happy now? Rafablu88 (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The second should be very easily resolved. If the first is insisted to be included, then its significance should be enhanced. Other media are okay. Jappalang (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Media files are okay. The photo is verifiably licensed for free use, and the copyrighted media are appropriate as fair use. Jappalang (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Rafablu88 (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "childhood friends Sam Eastgate, Andrew Faley, Sam Potter, and Ross Dawson initially conceived the sound of their first album" Conception only happens once, so what do you mean by "initially conceived"? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, basically I wanted to show that the process had more than one stage, i.e. 1. they listened to The Prodigy and Nirvana and 2. they then branched out into other genres. I see you removed the "soon" from the second sentence which is probably why it makes less sense now. Do you think it needs the "initially" (and if so we should probably readd the "soon") or not? Rafablu88 (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I cracked it! Used "developed" and readded "soon". "Conception" comes in in the next sentence to sum everything up. No redundancy and much better flow. Rafablu88 (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Much better. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• "whom they asked to do some art and" Can this be phrased better? "do some art" is woefully inadequate. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed it. Wasn't that essential. Rafablu88 (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• "The band ultimately signed to Parlophone instead of Atlantic Records because Parlophone gave them free rein over the recording process for 'Interesting Adventure' without pressuring them to be commercially successful immediately." You say this as though the band might have had a reason to pick Atlantic Records instead. The article doesn't explain this. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Separated the two issues. They only gave a positive reason for choosing Parlophone. Rafablu88 (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Comment I'd like to hear Karanac's opinion (she indicated that she would revisit tomorrow) before making any verdict, but I am leaning toward supporting. The changes since the start of the FAC have made the article that much better. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed to full support after further review and further comments by other readers. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Provisional support. It's looking solid, and it was an interesting read. A few issues:
  • I'm spotting MoS problems in the lead and other places. Single quotation marks are never recommended (unless inside double quotation marks) because they muck up search engines.
  • "Unconventional time signatures and experimental chords were performed during the nascent recording stages in Eastgate's bedroom because, at the time, no band member could play an instrument properly." What does this mean? The passive voice eliminates the subject. We assume the subject is Eastgate, but you've just said no band member could play... isn't Eastgate a band member?
  • "This was followed by the recording of an EP titled ..." Avoid using the ambiguous "this" without clarification. This what?
  • Check the punctuation in the quotation at the end of the "Finalising the project (2008)" section. If the final period is part of the quotation-within-the-quotation, it should be inside the closing single quotation mark.

--Laser brain (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. All done I think. Rafablu88 (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reliable sources: more feedback is needed (particularly from those who supported) on the questionable sources identified by Ealdgyth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for repeating myself but what else does there need to be said about the sources? All fulfil Ealdglth's criteria as per his link. I really don't know what else I could personally find in support. Also, don't supports tacitly assume the sources to be reliable since that is one of the key criteria that the article is examined against before an informed decision is made by the aforementioned supportive users? Finally, one of the FAC people, Karanacs, has explicitly stated that she leans reliable in the same vein as Ealdglth. Rafablu88 (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment on sources - I examined the sources and weighed Ealdgyth's comments. For my part, I'm satisfied with Rafablu88's explanations and rationales. Are some of them the highest quality music sources? No. Are they the highest quality available for this topic? I would say yes. The only two that remain somewhat questionable to me are Click Music and Subba-Cultcha, but they are not supporting anything controversial, just interviews. --Laser brain (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I had a more detailed review of the questioned sources, but my browser shut down on me. So, suffice it to say that I think that the nominator's rationales are sufficient. Since the sources are only being used for criticism on important musical aspects and interviews rather than statistics or other facts, I think the sources are fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for weighing in, Laser and Dabomb! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Just to point out that Timmeh has also had his say (positive) after his support above. Rafablu88 (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Weighing in on sources - This is an article about a band; the sources available won't match a figure like Harry S. Truman nor a musician with the fame of Elvis Presley, and they don't need to. They do however meet the standard of reasonable research and impartiality. With that being said I don't like that so many references are used repeatedly; Ten times, in the case of "Wilson, Jared (4 November 2008). "Late of the Pier Interview". LeftLion. http://www.leftlion.co.uk". It just seems off, to my eye. But I said that I support this nomination and that is exactly what I meant! Awg1010 (talk) 01:06, 19 June 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 21:30, 16 June 2009 [61].

---

Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes

Nominator(s): —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

FAC try #2. Minas Geraes was a battleship constructed for Brazil, of all countries. The news that Brazil was constructing such a ship made many countries desirous for an alliance. However, dreadnought technology quickly outpaced the 12" guns and wing turrets of Minas Geraes, and the ship faded into disrepair and obscurity. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for a set of boo-boos with images:
Naughty Ed came on my talk and admitted he made a boo-boo (and an unintentional hoodwinking) for the previous FAC,[62] so I checked the images he pointed out and...

• File:E Minas Geraes 1908.jpg: effectively has no source (Ponder Naval Online effectively states it as ?). Although taken at the launch of the vessel, we do not know if it is Brazilian copyright (first published in Brazil, or unpublished shot taken by Brazilian) or UK (first published in UK, or unpublished shot taken by UK). Basically a candidate for "no license" deletion.
  • Alright; any admin, feel free to speedy it. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Replaced with one of the ones below and nominated for deletion on Commons. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• File:Minas Geraes 1909.jpg: the photographer is Harry Ord Thompson, a private photographer who lives in Northumberland.[63] This photo is most likely covered by UK copyrights as Mr Thompson is unlikely to publish it in Brazil. To qualify for UK public domain, Mr Thompson, to be crass, should have passed away before 1926 (70 years and avoiding the URAA cut-off). Mr Thompson's lifespan is not available on the web, but it seems you can contact these guys, but I do not know if they do so for a price... Of course, if the photo was verifiably published before 1923, it can be hosted on Wikipedia...
  • I have sent off a message to the people you linked too; hopefully they will respond soon. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I recieved a reply a couple days ago and forgot to post here. The UK PD is out; according to the guys you linked to, "H O Thompson was still advertising in 1939 – [their] records stop at 1940. [They] do not know when he died." We also have no indication that it was published prior to 1923... perhaps it was in a UK newspaper? Having said all of that...I replaced it already. :) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• File:Minas Gerais after refit.jpg: should be okay if we trust Ponder Naval Online (judging that they seem quite honest with their sources) and that SDM is Serviço de Divulgação da Marinha do Brasil. I think this is okay but please attach the license (no license tag at the moment).
  • Commons:Template:Attribution-NavyofBrazil says that only images on the navy's website are ok. Is this it a problem that this image wasn't from their website (it was only taken by them?). Am I opening a second can of worms with this? :) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh boy... that is a problem... Can you access https://biblioteca.dphdm.mar.mil.br/internet/navios/cons.asp (Brazillian Navy's photo archives)? It keeps giving me an error, but if you can access it, perhaps you might find the photo in there?
    • How about using File:E Minas Geraes 1945.jpeg? It is not a broadside view, but it is from the Brazillian Navy's site... Jappalang (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't want to use that image unless I absolutely have to; it used to be in the article, and if you think the sun is bad in the actual image, try seeing it in thumbnail...
      • Poder Naval says that "On this site we use photos of public domain and release of manufacturers and official bodies" (Google translation). Perhaps this is an indication that the Brazilian Navy has released them? Otherwise, I'll have to try emailing the Brazilian Navy, but I'm not confident in that; Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs) emailed them twice regarding the name of the ship during the first FAC and got no response. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I doubt we can take that as the interpretation. Ponder might have gotten the photo from Brazilian Navy in other places (perhaps a Navy magazine). Jappalang (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Re way above: no, their photo archives give me an error too. I've replaced this image with File:E Minas Geraes 1945.jpeg. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Other images are okay. Jappalang (talk) 08:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Images currently in the article are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

• Christopher Bells' Naval Mutinies of the Twentieth Century (2003): an official Brazillian Navy photo of the ship, and a published 1910 photo of the mutineers.
• Cassier's magazine (1909): photo of its launch uploaded
• Popular Mechanics (Oct 1909): Drawing of the ship in comparison to five other countries' dreadnoughts
• US Naval Intelligence's Information Concerning Some of the Principal Navies of the World (1912): not drawings, but the US Intelligence's cost estimate of $8,863,843 should be more accurate than New York Times, right? The costs for other dreadnoughts are also supplied.

These should make up for the possible loss of 2 previous images. Jappalang (talk) 08:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going to be away for the next few hours, but I will be working on this. Apologies to Awadewit for hoodwinking her... :-/ —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahoy there Hi Ed, that was a nice read, I've made a few tweaks which I hope you like, but "wounding the cook" strikes me as odd as a ship of that size would surely have more than one cook? Wounding a cook sounds more likely. ϢereSpielChequers 12:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably right; I also remember that you added a comment about this to the last FAC and I forgot about it. :-) Thanks WSC! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, do your sources give any detail re crew sizes, if so I think it would be worth adding. Also the bit about former slaves could probably benefit from a link to the Lei Áurea to explain how young some former Brazilian slaves would have been at that time. ϢereSpielChequers 23:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that '"Conway's does, but I'm not sure if it would help; sure, the crew would be at x size at its commisioning, but 40 years later, with modernizations, less casemate guns, more AA guns etc. it would probably be very different. I don't want to give a misleading figure...

Oh man, that is a good link. Thanks a lot dude; I will add this in later tonight/tomorrow morning when I am on next (have to run again). —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've also tracked down a paragraph that partially explains the coffee boom and subsequent bust. I appreciate that crew size would fluctuate widely, especially when the shift from coal to oil removed the need for stokers. So if we only have one snapshot of crewsize you need to accompany it with caveats, but I do think the article should include some mention of the topic. ϢereSpielChequers 07:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you yet again! It is a nice little para. I'll add a mention of crew size into the infobox with a note. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries, In the early twenties the 4.7" guns were reduced from 22 to 4 but in the 30s "two extra 4.7 in (120 mm) guns were added (making 14 total)". I think 8 guns are unaccounted for. ϢereSpielChequers 16:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You are very right. Am looking into. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)]

Got it.[64] The casemate guns were reduced to four; overall, the battleship still had 12. Thanks! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I've had only a quick look through. The writing looks up to standard. Some of those pics could be photoshopped—is that possible, legal, ethical? I say this for the future. I see you italicise the name of the ship in the text, but not in the title. I like it, but note that MilHist ship names are often not italicised. What's the deal with the WikiProject MilHist styleguide? Thanks and well done. Tony (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It's all three as long as you don't misrepresent/change the subject. I'm having my brother, who is way better than me with these things, take a stab at the lead and launch images. Re ship names: if you are referring to the actual title at the top ("Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes"), Mediawiki can't italicize article titles; same problem with novels like The Sword of Shannara. **Or are you thinking of ship classes like the Admiral class battlecruiser, where the class name is not a ship of the class? They aren't italicized because there is no ship name there. :-) Ship names are always italicized; so Minas Geraes-class battleship is right, but Design 1047-class battlecruiser is not—"Design 1047" was not going to be the name of a ship in that class. I believe this is why we have {{Sclass2}}?
  • My last guess is that you saw the New York Times quote. They aren't italicized there because they weren't in the actual NYT article; is it allowed for me to italicize them here on wiki? If it's not one of these three things, I do not know what you are referring too?
  • Thank you very much for the support! Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support in full confidence that the minor image snafus above will be swiftly resolved. I reviewed this at its first FAC, and the only issue I had then was with the prose. It's been improved since and now reads very nicely. I've made some minor prose changes, as it was quicker than listing them on this page; see the intermediate edit summaries for the rationales for each. As always, feel free to disagree with any change I've made. Very nice work. Steve ^{T • C} 15:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I looked through every edit, had some laughs (including one at a rather bad pun). :-) Many thanks for the copyediting; all of the things you changed made the article much better. My writing is slowly improving with each article I write and get reviewed, but I wish it would improve faster! Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, there was something I forgot to ask: is there any reason the article title doesn't go for the simplest disambiguation, Minas Geraes (battleship) or similar? Steve ^T • C 15:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
      • WP:SHIPNAME says that ship articles should be located at (country) (ship type) (name). Having said that, I think that the above is a plausible redirect... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Ah, no problem! it was more curiosity than anything, as in my comfort zone of film articles we tend to go for something like Gaslight (1944 film) rather than 1994 film Gaslight; WP:SHIPNAME obviously determines that a ship's country of origin can be as important as its name, and that's fair enough. Steve ^T • C 07:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Hey, that's a valid concern; I'm not entirely sure why/how SHIPNAME is how it is, but I'm just following the guideline. :) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 18:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I've been through it a few times and I'm not seeing any other issues. --Laser brain (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your previous review in the first FAC and your the copyediting. Cheers! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Shouldn't the title be Minas Geraes or Minas Geraes (Brazillian battleship)? Stifle (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Per WP:SHIPNAME, warship articles go at (country) (type) (ship name) [see more in my above conversation with Steve]. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 18:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Some issues: there are some strange, non-standard citation templates in use that are causing an inconsistent citation style (some have p. or pp. while others use pg.). I don't know where those are coming from, but the citation style should be consistent. Also, pls review and fix all image caption punctuation to conform with WP:MOS#Captions (full sentences vs. sentence fragments). I'm also concerned that the proliferation of templates in ship articles may cause those article to run into template limits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • On it. I've removed the periods from those captions that are sentence fragments (save for the "gun trials" one, which begins as a fragment before morphing into a full sentence) and if Ed isn't around this evening I'll see what I can do about those templates that show "pg.", even if we have to get agreement to change them at source. Steve ^T • C 17:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Steve (I tried looking up those templates at the source, but this is where it comes in handy to be an admin ... hint !!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the help, Steve; a person quit at the place I work and I got her hours. Good for getting more money for college, bad for on-wiki time. The non-standard stuff is coming from {{Cite newspaper The Times}}; if we can't change them, I could convert them to {{cite news}}, though I'm not sure where the bolded issue #'s would go...or I could just copy/paste in the text generated by the templates and manually fix the pg.'s. Not sure what you mean by "template limits"...? Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 18:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Sounds like an ambitious person should TFD Cite newspaper The Times as redundant ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
          • The template wasn't edit protected, so I was able to fix it myself. But it is redundant to cite journal, which could accomplish the same thing. I hope someone TFDs it as creepy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 16 June 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 21:30, 16 June 2009 [65].

---

Abu Nidal

Nominator(s): SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Self-nomination, an article I've been writing very slowly on and off since 2005. I think it's a good length, not too long, and I believe it contains all the most significant issues. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support on the basis of 1a: beautifully written. Sourcing looks highly skilled. Disclaimer: I don't know the topic well. Just a few points you may consider:
  • Last two paras in 1948 Palestine War—can they be merged?
  • "each other's homes"—I can't work out whether it should be others'.
  • Just checking: it is in BrEng with "ize", yes? While the zed is a minority choice, it's still acceptable.
  • At the moment he shot Abu Iyad, Hamza reportedly shouted, "Let Atef Abu Bakr help you now!" a reference to the senior ANO member Abu Nidal believed Abu Iyad had planted within the group as a spy. In addition to that, Abu Iyad was on poor terms with Gaddafi, giving Abu Nidal additional cause.[60]—Comma after the quote? Perhaps avoid "addition ... additional".Tony (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments, Tony. I merged the two paragraphs, and I think it's "each other's homes," which I seem to recall from Fowler, but I'll check. I didn't consciously write in either BrEng or American; I just wrote what I'm used to doing myself, so I'll check to make sure it's consistent. I added a comma after the Hamza quote, and I've removed the additional "additional." :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• It is "each other's". JN466 10:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks JN, yes, of course it is. The spelling, Slim, is consistent, since BrEng can and still does occasionally use the zeds. I think there's no issue. Tony (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments *Is it intentional that publications (Der Spiegel, The Guardian) aren't wikilinked? If not, I don't mind going through them quickly.

• Section Personality: "and the early loss of both his father and mother"—we have just said that he remained close to his mother.
• "... and Black September, a group of radical fedayeen associated with Arafat's Fatah, who carried out operations using Black September as a cover." We are using Black September twice in the same sentence, with different meanings. I can't think of an elegant way to fix this right now. JN466 23:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Jayen, thanks for commenting. I intentionally didn't link publications, because I like to keep the number of blue links low, but feel free to add them. I've fixed the "early loss" of father and mother, and the Black September sentence. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Publication names: If you did it intentionally then I'm happy to leave it as you had it. On the referencing: Could we add the books' ISBN numbers in the References section? It makes verification easier. I could also harvardise the references for you, so the footnotes are clickable, as they are here for example (it's not needed for FA, obviously, but is user-friendly).

• There are a few things listed in the references that don't appear in the notes section; e.g. "Pipes, Daniel (1992). "Abu Nidal: A Gun For Hire", book review, Wall Street Journal, February 18, 1992, accessed June 7, 2009.", "Abadi, Jacob (2000)."Pragmatism and Rhetoric in Libya's Policy Toward Israel", Journal of Conflict Studies, Volume XX Number 1, Fall 2000, accessed June 7, 2009." As the article seems quite fully referenced, with at least a reference at the end of most paragraphs, how do these references support article content? JN466 10:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• There are a few unreferenced statements/paragraphs that I feel would profit from a reference: e.g. "it seems he grew to despise women ..."; the paragraph starting "Each new recruit ..." in "Nature of the organization"; in the lead section of "Political life", there are a few paragraphs that are wholly or partly unreferenced; the section "Criticism of the PLO" is likewise completely unreferenced. Would it be possible to add the missing references to these?
• In amongst my nit-picking let me say that I find the article very interesting overall; so far I don't see any major non-compliance with WP:WIAFA criteria. JN466 19:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) I'll add refs for the material you've pointed out. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added the extra refs; let me know if you want more. I also added ISBN numbers. Regarding the Harvard refs, I'm not a big fan of those, though I won't object if someone else adds them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Reading about the "First operation", I did a double-take – it was not immediately clear to me that the wording "a high-level hostage situation" in the 2nd para referred to the seizure of the Saudi embassy in Paris described in the first para. I was also left wondering if the hostages were flown places or stayed in the embassy. Is it possible to clarify this section a little? JN466 16:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting)I think this is a bit clearer: [66]

Abu Nidal's first operation took place on September 5, 1973, when five gunmen, using the name Al-Iqab (The Punishment), seized the Saudi embassy in Paris, taking 11 hostages and threatening to blow up the building if Abu Dawud was not released from jail in Jordan, where he had been arrested in February 1973 for an attempt on King Hussein's life. After lengthy negotiations, the gunmen and some of the hostages left on a Syrian Airways jet for Kuwait, from where they flew to Riyadh, threatening to throw some of the hostages out of the aircraft on the way. For three days negotiations continued, aided by Ali Yassin, a PLO representative, until eventually the gunmen were convinced by the Saudi's insistence that they had no control over the Jordanian authorities. They surrendered and released the hostages on September 8. Abu Dawud was released from prison two weeks later. Seale writes that the Kuwaiti government had agreed to pay King Hussein $12 million for the release.

According to Seale, the seizure of the embassy had been commissioned by Iraq's president, Ahmed Hasan al-Bakr. On the day of the seizure, 56 heads of state had gathered in Algiers for the 4th conference of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Seale writes that al-Bakr commissioned the attack out of jealousy toward Algeria that they were the hosts; a high-level hostage situation was therefore arranged as a distraction. One of the hostage-takers later admitted that his orders had been to fly the hostages back and forth until the NAM conference had ended.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that is brilliant. JN466 00:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Finished copyedit. Support, fine article. JN466 01:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support This article, to my surprise, is very detailed and comprehensive. It is also fully referenced and I have yet to spot any blatant POV. The only thing I'm against in this article are the massive quote boxes in the "Early life" section. Other than that small problem, I see no reason to oppose. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose due to image concerns (WIAFA #3):

• Choose either File:AbuNidal3.gif or File:AbuNidal.jpg: I am not certain why two fair-use images of Abu Nidal are needed. One is more than sufficient. His features has not changed much between the two.

  I have replaced the chosen GIF with a JPG version (per WP:IUP), and written up the fair use rationale in a template. Jappalang (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• File:Rome airport 1985.jpg: please explain in the fair-use rationale why this photo is signficant with respect to Abu Nidal, and why removing it from the article would result in a loss in the reading experience. (ref:Dispatches: Reviewing non-free images)
• File:Bank of Credit and Commerce International logo.jpg: where is the image's fair-use rationale for this article? Of what significance and irreplaceability does it serve in this article?
• File:Weizmann 1948.jpg: Brown-Suarez photo are not government employees. They are a private business.[67][68] The license is wrong. What assures this image to be in the public domain?

Other images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the second image of Abu Nidal. These are believed to have been released by the Israeli army (IDF), and they're iconic images, so there's no problem using them: I'm claiming fair use because the IDF didn't respond to my queries about them.

The Rome airport image gives an impression of the carnage the gunmen left behind. Again, this is an iconic image. I used the BCCI logo partly for aesthetic reasons only, to break up the text, and partly to remind readers about the BCCI story: the image was published everywhere at the time of its closure. I don't know who would own it now that the bank no longer exists.

The Weizmann image is on the Commons and says it's in the public domain. I don't know anything about it beyond that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand the airport image as iconic of his acts, but the image is already used in its own article. Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images (#5) states it as an unacceptable use of fair use images: "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)". It would be best to remove the photo here. The same reasoning can be applied to the BCCI logo (although I believe its signficance, as a logo, to Abu Nidal is very weak). Moreover, both images are lacking fair-use rationales specifically for this article (fair use images require a separate FUR for each article they are used in). If the BCCI section needs a photo, File:LordBingham3.jpg could do. File:Rom Fiumicino 04.jpg or one of the other photos in commons:Category:Aeroporto di Roma-Fiumicino could serve as a image in the Rome and Vienna section.

For Weizmann, some things on Commons are not truly in public domain (some are uploaded mistakenly or under misconceptions, others are...). How about using File:Weizmann's passport photo.jpg or File:Chairman Weizmann.jpg, which have a solid case for being in public domain compared to the Brown-Suarez photo? Jappalang (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I replaced Weizmann with one of your suggestions (thank you for linking to those; when I looked on Commons for a replacement, I couldn't find one); I removed the BCCI logo and replaced it with a free image of the Bank of England; and I removed the Rome image entirely. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

All images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Single copyrighted image is under appropriate fair use to identify deceased and reclusive(?) subject. Jappalang (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Per the MOS, the big curly quotes on the quotations are depreciated.
• As a general matter, I would prefer to see the references all alphabetized together, rather than having most of them alphabetized by author (through Yallop) then have another section of just titles alphabetized (mostly, as it's not very well alphabetized.) I'd alphabetize by whatever is given first in the reference. But this isn't a deal breaker, just makes it easier to find the short form refs.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean alphabetize the other references by the first word in the title? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've alphabetized the articles without bylines according to the first letter of the title, but I've kept them separate from the bylines. The curly quotes are just for the pull quotes, by the way. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the pull quote format is depreciated, especially as our {{cquote}} template doesn't make the font size of the quote bigger. Check with Sandy however, she's the MOS guru. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

She took a look over it when I first put it up, so I'm assuming they're okay to use. I like pull quotes; they break up the text for the reader. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave that one for a true expert to opine on. I'm done, looks good on sourcing! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• sources : comments

Article articulates itself around 2 main books written by Patrick Seale and Yossi Melman. Both are high standing journalists specialists on the topic and without apparent bias. Quotes clearly indicates these journalists investigated a lot and interviewed numerous people. Arab secondary source could be an added value but it is very hard (if not impossible) to find. I am not a specialist of the topic but I checked in the books I have about Middle-East and I/P conflict and I didn't find any other important event related to this man. I think the work here is more than satisfying for what concerns sourcing. Ceedjee (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Question Wikipedia has a policy that doesn't call any organization as "terrorist" for Al-Qaeda it is "Designated as Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department Designated as Proscribed Group by the UK Home Office Designated as terrorist group by EU Common Foreign and Security Policy" You should fix it in the lead for neutrality. It is a long article which is a major accomplishment, but I cannot review it fully since it is really long. Kasaalan (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree about not using the word "terrorist." I previously had "guerrilla group," but another editor changed it, and I'm currently debating with him on the talk page. I'll change it back in the meantime. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• • No debation is actually needed, just show him Al-Qaeda it is a wikipedia wide policy. Guerilla group is just fine. Kasaalan (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Another editor objected to "guerrilla" on talk, so we've settled for "militant." I've also added an infobox, per talk suggestion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:06, 14 June 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 21:30, 16 June 2009 [69].

---

BP Pedestrian Bridge

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs), Torsodog (talk · contribs), Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have finally gotten a good copy editor (Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs)) involved in the article. He has cleaned up the text, gotten the images winnowed down to a useful quantity, provided us with a great template map of the entire park and helped us clean up the references. I think it is really headed in the right direction.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. He has already agreed to close the PR when I nominated this, so the PR will close momentarily.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - as noted I did a major copy edit on this and also appreciate the very helpful most recent peer review, as well as the comments from the previous FACs andPRs. I believe this now meets the FAC criteria and will watch this FAC to see if more copyedits are needed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I somehow missed that Tony and Torsodog graciously listed me as a conominator above. Sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • You are a very deserving co-nominator. You did a tremendous job with the copyedit and the referencing issues at PR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. A few comments (all trivial and none deal-breakers):

1. Do people actually call it "the BP Bridge", or has it acquired a nickname? Big civic projects have a habit of being renamed by the public, despite their official name, and just looking at this one suggests a whole bunch of nicknames.
   • Even some of the references use this name. It does not have any other nicknames like the Silver Snake or something if that is where you are going.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Does the bridge have a problem with suicides? That low-barrier/freeway combination looks to have all the hallmarks of a suicide bridge.
   • I have not heard of any such stories. The park (including this bridge) is closed from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. daily, which are probably suicide hours.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
     • I googled BP Bridge and Suicide and did not find anything on this either, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Was it assembled in situ, or built offsite and shipped to its present location?
   • In place. The Gilfoyle book has pictures of the progress.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
     • I added "on site" to the sentence CMF used 57,000 square feet (5,300 m²) of materials, and built special heated enclosures so that work could continue throughout the winter on site. Is this (hopefully) clearer? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
4. It could do with some critical comments in the "Aesthetics" section. At the moment, I see lots of people saying how great it is, but no design – let alone one this modern – is uncritically received; there must be at least some prominent Chicago and/or architectural figures who think it's an eyesore.
   • I am not as familiar with the refs on this as Tony is, but I did not see much negative criticism. There was a news story where some ordinary Chicagoans said it looked like a UFO or spaceship or some other things, but I am having trouble fidning that now. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
5. The whole "has to close during winter" thing could do with some expansion. Firstly, if it's documented, just how the decision to build something that can't operate in the cold got approved by people who were presumably aware of Illinois weather; secondly, if there are any plans to remedy this (replacing the flooring? roofing?).
   • There is no known plans to alter the bridge, AFAIK. Yes they did not notice the winter care problem until it fell into their laps. This was Gehry's first bridge. Like the article says they noticed it after the bridge was built. They have since built the Nichols Bridgeway, which is heated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
6. What happens when the bridge is closed? Does the park have to shut down as well, or are the alternative routes sufficient?
   • Although the bridge is closed for inclement weather, the park is not. The alternate routs are crosswalks that are open year round.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Has it had any impact on the surrounding area? As those who've followed my bridge-and-rail series will know, one of my pet themes is just how big an impact bridges and stations have on their surrounding area; has it lead to increased people visiting the area and a knock-on effect on businesses near the park?
   • The whole park was newly opened when the bridge opened. The park is one of the city's most popular tourist attractions. It is hard to attribute this to the bridge in isolation since the park has more than a dozen features.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
     • This is a repsonse to points 6 and 7 really. Even when the bridge is closed there are many other ways to enter the park and the more populous areas are across the other three streets (not Columbus Drive) - part of the original purpose of the bridge was to increase ease of access to the Lakefront and points east across Columbus from the rest of the Loop. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Is "a continuous five percent slope" accurate? That would mean one end is almost 50 feet higher than the other. Certainly possible, if it exits onto a hill, but it doesn't seem all that likely, and "on the level" photos like File:Bpbridgepole-2.jpg don't show any obvious slope.
   • I am not an expert on this subject, and am not sure I understand your point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
     • Might not have worded it very clearly – what I mean is, "continuous 5% slope" to me sounds like it slopes 5% uphill/downhill the whole way (i.e., for every 100 feet horizontally it rises 5 feet vertically) – but in the photo it doesn't look like it's sloping much at all. A very minor point but just wondered if it was accurate. – iridescent 20:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
       • I think I understand what your concern is here. The bridge slopes up, flattens out, then slopes down as you walk from one end to the other. --Torsodog^Talk 21:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
         • As I understand it there are some accessibility guidelines that at no point should the slope exceed 5%. Thus, I think the bridge has a maximum 5% slope. Let us know if you think the text needs further clarification.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
           • Thanks - I have tweaked the continuous slope sentences to try make them clearer - diff. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
9. This one will probably get me shouted at by Tony (the other one) and Sandy as I'm sure it breaches some policy or other, but I think it could do with some transport information (nearest station, nearby landmarks). I'm fairly familiar with 1990s Chicago (that is to say, before this was built), yet I just had to look on Google Earth to figure out "ah, that's the thing they were building next to Randolph Street Station". I'm not talking about "a block south on Wabash and two blocks east on Monroe" type directions, but just something like "to the northeast of the Art Institute of Chicago".
   • All of that is in the more general article about the park. I am not so sure how much of that should be repeated in the articles for each feature.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
     • Fair enough, although I still think it ought to at least say something like "in the north of Grant Park". I imagine a lot of people reading this particular article will be people using Wikipedia to plan vacations, to whom this kind of information is useful. I always say that WP:USEFUL is a stupid guideline; the whole point of Wikipedia ought to be to be as useful to our readers as we can. As I say, though, your article, and certainly not something I'd oppose over. – iridescent 20:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
       • You are a bridge guy and I am not. I personally don't think people would plan a trip just to visit the bridge. I think people using WP to plan a vacation would be taking in the whole park. Even in Chicago, no one would say go to the north end of Grant Park. Once, we say it is in Millennium Park, that is sufficient. Millennium Park is about as famous as it gets in Chicago. It is the second most popular tourist attraction in the city. More than the Sears Tower, etc. I would add anything you request, but am not so sure anything further is really relevant here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
         • You know Chicago far better than me; like I say, my knowledge of it is all 10+ years out of date. Also, I know it from the perspective of someone living in IN, so my view is probably skewed by a "the nearer it is to Randolph Street Station the more likely I am to know it" bias. If you and Ruhrfisch both think it's not necessary I certainly defer to you in this case. – iridescent 22:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
           • I have not seen the bridge in person (alas) and though I love Chicago I have not been there in several years, so my knowledge is also out of date. That said, the article does describe Millennium Park as being in the northwest corner of Grant Park and west of Columbus Drive in the first paragraph of the "Preliminary plans" section, and the wikilinked map at the bottom does show the surrounding streets. I would be OK with adding something like "The new park is also north of Monroe Street and the Art Institute, east of Michigan Avenue, and south of Randolph Street." at the end of that paragraph. Would that be better? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
             • I was bold and added the sentence. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Think that's all of them. As I say, none of them are outright problems, just things that I think ought potentially to be there. – iridescent 20:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support I supported at an earlier FAC, and the article is even better now. DVD 04:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple questions though. First, the following notes are only cited once:

56 ^ Jencks, p. 257

57 ^ Waters, p. 161

58 ^ Feuerstein, p. 131

...yet they are singled out as references. They provide some context and are interesting in my opinion, though listing them in a reference section seems slightly misleading to me since they don't mention this bridge. May I suggest moving them into the notes section for that reason. DVD 04:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the single-use refs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Second, they are linked to google books with search words highlighted. Would it be better to link to the pages in google books without the search words? DVD 04:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have to ask for technical assistance on unhighlighting because I surely can not manipulate the URL myself.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I unhighlighted them. DVD 04:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. What did you have to do?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Just trimmed them back to the page number, where it says for instance pg=PA250. The main clue is after that the search words are listed with pluses between them, so you just delete that part back to the page number. Not easy to explain but pretty easy to do, just take a look at the last edit I made to the article. DVD 05:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good, much improved since the last FAC(s). Good work all. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Looking good...

• "north-south" en dash.

• changed

• "the bridge might not have been as sleek as it is." Last three words are unnecessary.

• removed "as it is"

• "sheet metal work totalled 5,900 field hours" Shouldn't we be using American English? "totaled"

• changed

• "There are convex, concave and radius areas stretching the total length of both sides of the bridge, which is 1,728 feet (526.7 m)."-->Convex, concave and radius areas stretch the total length of both sides of the bridge, which is 1,728 feet (526.7 m).

• changed

• The New York Times-->The New York Times

• changed

• "Gehry has a long history of artistic use of scaled animals such as fish and snakes, a history that goes back to the 1960s and first appeared in his architectural designs in the 1980s." Seems unnecessarily wordy, why not "Since the 1960s, Gehry has made artistic use of scaled animals such as fish and snakes, which first appeared in his architectural designs in the 1980s."

• nice edit. changed

• Unlink the dates in the references.

• There is a lot of date format inconsistency in the references in general. When I get a chance, I will format all dates to Month 00, 0000 and remove the links. --Torsodog^Talk 14:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• In that case, I fixed it for you. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• LOL... I wish I would have known there was an easier way. I just got 3/4 of the way through the page doing it all manually before I realized you had done it already with a script! Either way, thanks for the help. --Torsodog^Talk 16:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Only other thing I noticed was the lack of mention of praise or criticism in the lead; just a sentence or two would be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks - I will work on a sentence, suggestions are also welcome, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I added Although the bridge closes in winter because ice cannot be safely removed from its wooden walkway, it has received favorable reviews for its design and aesthetics. to the lead to try and summarize the main criticism and praise - is this OK? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Overall, the article looks better than it did the last time I saw it. However, I still have some concerns about the "Use and controversies" section. That bit about the bridge closing during the Tori Amos concert is sourced to the Sun-Times letters page. And that source doesn't even say that the bridge was closed because "attendees were outraged at being charged for seating". The letter writer guesses that it was closed because "Tori Amos and her crew need to have the world's most expensive red carpet". Zagalejo^^^ 19:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for catching this. I changed the sentences to ... the city charged $10 for lawn seating at an August 31, 2005 Tori Amos concert, leading to protests.[46][47] On the day of the concert, officials closed the bridge—which is generally open to the public—until 7 a.m. the next day.[48] and cut out the parts not supported by the source. Is this better? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well, it is remotely possible that the bridge closing had nothing to do with the Amos concert. The sources don't really give us enough to work with. The only one that mentions the bridge at all is the letter to the editor. I think David Cane makes a good point about the last two paragraphs in that section. The details don't help readers understand the bridge any better. We wouldn't be losing much if we just deleted them. Zagalejo^^^ 04:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please see my comment on the bridge closure for private events below (I am definitely in favor of keeping those in). I am on the fence about including the Tori Amos concert closure with the current refs. I think it definitely belongs in an article about the park itself and about the Pritzker Pavilion, but am not sure if it belongs here. I will defer to Tony and Torsodog on keeping this in or not. If it were deleted, the text could read something like In addition to weather-related closures in the winter, the bridge has had controversial event-related closures in the summer. These closures have been part of larger park concerns. In both 2005 and 2006, the bridge and almost all of Millennium Park was closed for a day ... Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Final Plan:
    • From the description and the images, most of the 935 feet length quoted for the bridge is actually composed of ramps. Although the article states that the bridge is "over ten times longer than the span of street it crosses" it does not say what the length of the central span over Columbus Drive is. I think that for a bridge the actual span is a crucial factor.
      • The bridge is very curvy and I have never seen that quoted. There is likely a measure of the breadth of the Columbus Drive, but I do not have it and am not sure where to look. Would the width of the road crossed be sufficient?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I looked at every ref cited and found only this in current ref 20 from 2000: The pedestrian bridge is supposed to link Millennium Park with another section of Grant Park, Daley Bicentennial Plaza, just to its east. They are now separated by a trenchlike portion of Columbus Drive, about 150 feet wide, where speeding cars create an intimidating environment for pedestrians. This is much wider than 93 feet maximum width implied by one-tenth of 935 feet. Looking at images this also seems like it may be a bit too wide to me - looking at File:Bpbridgepole-2.jpg and using 12 feet as the standard minimum road lane width and counting the sidewalks on either side and the central divider as three lanes, I would estimate it as about 110 feet wide. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
          • According to the article, we do know the clearance of the bridge (14'6") which appears to be about a tenth of the width shown in the photo, so 150' (straight line span) might be about right. I think most readers would expect to see the bridge span stated rather than just the total with ramps included - particularly as the ramps are so long in comparison. --DavidCane (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
            • I added this sentence to the end of the first paragraph of the Final plan section: The width of the "trenchlike portion of Columbus Drive" spanned is approximately 150 feet (46 m).[20] Is this OK? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
            • I reread the sources and combined the width sentences, so they now read According to the Chicago Tribune the width of the "trenchlike" area spanned is approximately 150 feet (46 m),[20] while The New York Times reports the bridge is over ten times longer than Columbus Drive is wide.[25] The Tribune width seems to be of the whole trench (street and sidewalks between the walls, approximate span of the bridge) while the Times says the bridge is about 1000 feet long(!) and seems to be referring to just the width of Columbus Drive itself. Since we have two reliable sources I tired to attribute and draw the distinctions as I understood them - is this better? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
              • Excellent.--DavidCane (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
                • Although I wouldn't rely on it as a proof, I've just used the measuring tool on Bing Maps (formerly Windows Live Maps) to measure the span of the bridge across North Columbus Drive and it does come out to about 150 ft. --DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
                  • Thanks so much for checking that, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Might be worth explaining what the "Lurie Garden seam" is as it wasn't exactly clear even from reading the Lurie Garden article. Suggest something like "...so that the west ramp coincided with the boardwalk of the Lurie Garden seam", if I have understood it correctly.
      • Changed to your version, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • "precise location of the Monroe Street Garage" seems a little over-precise. Presumably the garage covers a large area.
      • There is a point on Columbus Drive where the entrances are located. I think that is what is meant here. The garage probably extends under half if not all of Millenium Park. However, on Columbus, there is a point where you see the entrance in some pics. It is a few dozen meters south of the current supporting column.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I think that just saying that the bridge structure had be designed to work around the car park below would be fine. --DavidCane (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I removed the word precise and added a sentence. Let me know if this suffices.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
            • That does the job.--DavidCane (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • What is the weight of a full capacity load of pedestrians?
      • The article includes the only capacity metric I have information on.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I am the main author of five featured articles on bridges (all built in the 19th century in Pennsyvlania) and I was amazed at how little data on load and span and such is available on this bridge. It is not listed in the National Bridge Inventory for example. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
          • SOM might be able to advise. --DavidCane (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Wouldn't that be WP:OR?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
              • It's a remote chance that they'd be interested in helping, I know, but they might be able to provide a lead to a publication which gives the info. Anyway it's not a vital piece of data if it's not available. --DavidCane (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Construction:
    • I think the actual thickness of the stainless steel plate should be given in brackets, rather than just the gauge; e.g. (0.031 inches or 0.79 millimetres). Bear in mind that the gauge section of the sheet metal article is US-centric and different gauge systems apply elsewhere or sheet metal is specified just by its actual thickness.
      • I added this per your suggestion, thanks - it now reads The bridge was built using 22-gauge stainless steel type 316 plates (0.031 inches or 0.79 mm thick), with an angel hair finish ... is this OK? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I've adjusted it slightly to use a slash between the two alternatives rather than the brackets in brackets. --DavidCane (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think there may be a problem with interpreting the source's meaning of "convex, concave and radius areas stretching a total of 1,728 lineal feet, which is the total length of both sides of the bridge". Logically, for a bridge 935 feet long, the length of both sides added together should be 1,870 feet, so something seems to be missing (assuming that the Mary Cameron Frey article in the Chicago Sun-Times is correct as to the length). The use of the definite article ("...stretch the total length of both sides...") on the BP page has a different meaning to the ASM's use of the indefinite article ("...stretching a total of..."). It might be better to just say that a variety of convex, concave and radiused panels were used.
      • It seems conceivable to me that one side could be longer than the other because of all the curvature. It also seems to me that defining length as one specific number is less meaningful as a result. There is probably a way to measure length so that 935 is correct and another so that the lineal footage number is correct. I do not know how a winding bridge is measured, but am just presenting sourced numbers as we have them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree with Tony and have been thinking about Track meets where they have a staggered start so the runners all end at the same finish line. This has a lot of loops and curves and I would not be surprised at all if you got different lengths measuring each outside edge and straight down the middle of the walkway. The south side crossing Columbus is the inside curve for that broad curve and also for a very tight loop in Daley Bicentennial Plaza, while the north side is the outside curve for both of those and is the inside for only one notr as tight loop. My guess is the south side is noticably shorter. Also complicating things is the outward slope of the sides - do you measure at ground level or at the edge of the walkway? We seem to be getting into the dreaded Original Reseearch here (cue scary music). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Measuring things is something I do professionally. For a running track, although the inside and outside edges of the track are different lengths, if they are added together and the result is divided in two you will always get the the same result as if you measured the centre-line length of the track, no matter how convoluted it's route - provided that the width remains constant. As you note, the width of the cladding to the BP bridge is not constant along its length or from one side to the other, so it is probable that the lengths of the two sides are different; however, as the text stands there is an apparent disparity which could be resolved in a note. --DavidCane (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Since you are the professional, would you care to craft the note?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
              • I've had a go.--DavidCane (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
                • Looks good to me, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Use and controversies:
    • Most of the last two paragraphs of this section are not about the bridge, but the city authority's attitude to commercial exploitation of the park itself.
      • Yes the bridge was only a part of the exploitation in the last paragraph. I feel this is a relevant concern for people interested in learning about the bridge.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I am on the fence about the Tori Amos concert closure (please see above) but I think the two closures for private events are definitely worth including. It tells the reader about the use of the bridge and attitudes towards it (the public is upset when they cannot use it, private parties want to make sure they get exclusive use of it for their money). Another editor commented above that the article did not contain much negative criticism of the bridge and removing these would only make that worse (so I see this as a NPOV issue too). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
          • My thinking is that reviewers are requesting details about proximity to other landmarks and notable locations be included here because although they are more relvant for the park as a whole, the reader might only read this article. When discussing closures that include the bridge, the topic is equally broader in scope but relevant in this article. The general park closures belong in this article as much as the bridge's proximity to Art Institute of Chicago or Michigan Avenue does.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I don't believe removing these paragraphs would make the article any less neutral. These specific controversies aren't about structural flaws in the bridge (which are certainly worth mentioning). People were really complaining about the city authorities, not the bridge itself. (And as a general point about NPOV, some topics just haven't generated that much criticism. In those cases, we should be careful not to give undue weight to minor events just to appear more neutral.)
          • I'd be OK with a sentence or two explaining that the bridge is sometimes closed to the public during corporate events. But a whole paragraph about the closings seems like an unnecessary distraction. It's not like people were rioting that they couldn't get onto the bridge. Respectfully, Zagalejo^^^ 01:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
            • OK, I tried cutting the controversies back. I removed Tori Amos altogether and pruned the two rentals (with some details in a footnote now). The two paragraphs now read The bridge has also had controversial closures in the summer, which were related to larger park concerns. On September 8, 2005, Toyota Motor Sales USA paid $800,000 to rent the bridge and all but four venues in the park from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.[46][47] On August 7, 2006, Allstate paid $700,000 to rent the bridge and most of the park for a day.[48][49] Excluding commuters who normally walk through the park and tourists lured by its attractions was controversial, though the city said the money raised paid for free public programs in Millennium Park.[46] How is this? Here's the diff. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
              • I'm cool with that. Zagalejo^^^ 06:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
                • How close is that to a support?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • General:
    • "BP Pedestrian Bridge" is used with and without the definite article through out the page. BP bridge is also used in the image captions and the map of the park. Is the repeated use of "pedestrian" after the lead section necessary, particularly as the alternative name "BP bridge" is given there.
      • Thanks for catching this. I tried to make all uses of the full name also include the definite article and also checked all the plain "BP BRidge" uses. I am in favor of using both names within the article for variety. Some sources refer to it with the full name, so it is used some. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• --DavidCane (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks as always for checking these, and for your peer review check, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Image niggles as follows:

• File:BP Pedestrian Bridge.jpg: as prompted in its page, please provide a meaningful description for the image.
• File:Millennium Park Map.png: reference(s) for this map?

That is it. Images are appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, I added sources to the map and a description. I guess I could move the map to Commons. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I moved the map to Commons and deleted it here - the file name changed from .PNG to .png but I think I fixed all the links, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:04, 12 June 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 21:30, 16 June 2009 [70].

---

Albert Bridge, London

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 22:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And the Thames Bridges bandwagon rolls on… Although its location far from any tube station or spots on the tourist trail makes Albert Bridge less well known than its Central London cousins, it's one of the most extraordinary survivors of the golden age of 19th century experimental engineering. Despite having a design that looks like it would be more appropriate for a Wonderbra than a bridge, despite all manner of celebrities from John Betjeman to Robert Graves to Sybil Thorndike trying to get it closed, despite a truly surreal alliance of the Royal Automobile Club and Diana Dors lobbying to keep it open to traffic whatever the cost, and despite a structure that's dissolving in dog pee (literally), this spectacular failed experiment has somehow managed to stay more-or-less upright longer than any of its more conventional cousins. As with the previous entries in this series, I think this says all that could reasonably be said on the topic and I can't see an obvious way to say it better. – iridescent 22:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support from DavidCane. Nothing too serious :
  • Lead:
    • "modified by Sir Joseph Bazalgette into a design incorporating design elements...". Suggest changing the first "design" to "structure" to avoid the close repeat of that word.
    • The bridge wasn't designed for 20th century traffic so it can't really be said to be "poorly designed to cope" with it. Perhaps "poorly equipped"
    • Timber isn't usually described as being "corroded" but it might be "rotted".
    • Is it necessary to wikilink urine and dog?
    • "Unusual colour scheme". Unusual compared to what? The choice of colour scheme and the lighting seems to indicate a particular concern over a bridge collision. Has this happened in the past or is there something particular about Albert Bridge that makes this more likely to happen? Or is it just that the engineers have calculated that a collision would put the bridge permanently out of use?
  • Background:
    • It should be Commission of Woods, Forests, Land Revenues, Works, and Buildings, which explains why they were involved in Chelsea Embankment - neither a Wood nor a Forest.
    • If Victoria Bridge wasn't completed until 1858, the second half of the sentence "by the mid 19th century the wooden Battersea Bridge was dilapidated and considered unsafe and unpopular, while the newer Victoria Bridge suffered severe congestion." seems to be temporally at odds with the "by the mid 19th century" bit. I think a new sentence should be started after "unpopular".
    • Need commas around "in the early 1860s"
    • Need a comma after "less than 500 yards (460 m)"
    • "A compromise was reached, and in 1864 a new Act of Parliament was passed, authorising the new bridge on condition that it was completed within five years, but compelling the Albert Bridge Company to purchase Battersea Bridge at the time of the new bridge's opening and to compensate the owners of Battersea Bridge with £3,000 (about £213,000 as of 2009) per annum until the new bridge opened." This single sentence could do with being broken up. I suggest after the "within five years"
    • Need a comma after "while" in "...that, while as with a conventional suspension..."
    • Need a comma in the "1000" of "...1000 1/10-inch..."
  • Design and construction
    • As the Franz Joseph bridge was built to the same design, is it known if it suffered from the same structural weaknesses as the Albert Bridge. I'm wondering if the problem was inherent in Ordish's design or in, possibly, poor workmanship in the construction. Note n1 says that they were the only two significant bridges so it might be worth considering this issue in the text.
    • "...warning notices being placed on the bridge warning...". Suggest either removing the first "warning" or changing the second to "instructing".
    • Suggest explain what "break step" is . e.g. unsynchronised walking.
  • Transfer to public ownership
    • "By the time the new bridge eventually opened". Eventually is redundant.
    • "for the building of wide approach roads" Suggest "for building wide approach roads"
  • Structural weaknesses
    • The rods are described as steel here although they are said to be wrought iron earlier. Or is this meant to describe the cables.
  • Pedestrianised park proposal
    • Explain the background to why the RAC so vigorously campaigned against closure and how Diana Dors became involved.
  • Present day
    • Comment about urine and dog linking apply here again.
  • Notes and references
    • note 2. Suggest rephrasing to indicate that the closure of the Millennium bridge was temporary.
• --DavidCane (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed re repetition of "designed" – changed.
• Also agree about the "poorly designed" – reworded.
• You know more than me about the technical side of corrosion/rotting, so will go with your wording.
• Not sure about "dog", but I think in this instance linking "urine" is useful. Rotting timbers isn't something most people would normally associate with urine, and the link means people thinking "how does that work?" can find out about the chemistry of urine (which I suspect most people think of as just yellow water). And if nothing else, linking "dog" makes it clear that we're talking about the animal and that it's not some kind of technical jargon.
• Unusual compared to the other Thames bridges, most of which are either in white or fairly bright colours; as it's counter-intuitive that pastel shades increase visibility I think it does need to be explained at length. The particular concern about collisions at Albert Bridge is that the structure is so fragile that a collision would potentially cause a complete collapse, whereas with the other bridges it would just mean a brief closure for repairs. As most of the preceding article consists of a litany of structural defects I was hoping it wouldn't need to be spelled out in detail, but can certainly make that clear if you think it's necessary.
• Re Commissioners of Woods and Forests – well, you learn something new every day. I see the Dreaded Word "Arbuthnot" on that list, so moving quickly on…
• Reworded to make it clearer that the "mid 19th century" refers to Battersea, not Victoria, bridge.
• If you mean "In 1860, Prince Albert suggested that a new tollbridge built between the two existing bridges would be profitable, and in the early 1860s the Albert Bridge Company was created with the aim of building a new bridge" needs commas around "in the early 1860s", I'm not sure I agree. One could split the sentence in two at "profitable", but I think adding more commas would make it less readable without adding anything.
• Don't agree with 'Need a comma after "less than 500 yards (460 m)"' at all, unless I'm misunderstanding something.
  • Sorry, looks like I lost a bit when I copied the text. the main theme of the sentence is the bit following in bold; the rest is a sub clause, and the last "and" should be changed for a comma to properly set it into the main sentence: "An 1863 proposal was blocked by strong opposition from the operators of Battersea Bridge, less than 500 yards (460 m) from the site proposed for the new bridge and concerned at potential loss of custom.". --DavidCane (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, with you now - fixed. – iridescent 10:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Have taken out that "while" altogether as unnecessary.
• Again, I can't see the need for a comma in "a wire rope composed of 1000 1/10-inch (2.5 mm) diameter wires". It was composed of "1000 wires", not composed of "1000" and "wires", which adding a comma would seem to signify.
  • "1,000" not "1000" is what I meant. --DavidCane (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed. – iridescent 10:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• I don't know anything about the Franz Joseph Bridge other than that it was built, its length, and the demolition date. Any sources would be in either Czech, German or Russian so I'm not holding my breath on it. It was demolished due to weakness, but this was just after WW2 so I couldn't say if that was due to design flaws or being used to carry heavy military equipment. Going into OR mode, I suspect rising traffic volumes weren't as much of an issue in the hinterland of Austria-Hungary as they were in central London.
• Removed the first "warning" instead to avoid repetition.
• Have done. I was a little surprised we don't have an article on it already.
• Removed the "eventually".
• I actually prefer "for the building of" to "for building" in this particular case, but if anyone feels particularly strongly have no problem with them changing it.
• Oops, good catch – yes, iron rods, steel cables.
• I don't actually know why the RAC, let alone Diana Dors, was campaigning about it (I can speculate that the RAC didn't want to set a precedent for pedestrianization, but it would just be speculation; Dors was from Swindon and I've no idea how she came to be involved). I can source that they fronted the campaign, but nothing seems to go into motives, and I can't find anything in any online archives about the issue. (It's certainly not an important enough point to make me go wade through newspaper libraries.)
• Same response as before about linking dog urine. (I always link the first appearance in the lead and the first occurrence in the body text, if you're wondering why it's linked twice.)
• Added a "temporary".

Hope that's all of them… – iridescent 01:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Upon a thorough read-through and a brief check of the sources, I found nothing to fault. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - and comments, of course - 1. You are using multiple conjunctions in a sentence that sometimes takes away from the meaning. For instance - "The bridge was built as a toll bridge, but was commercially unsuccessful, and six years after opening it was taken into public ownership and the tolls were lifted." You could remove the ", and" and substitute a semi-colon or simply a period and capitalize the six. It would create an abrupt transition that actually causes a stronger rhetorical link. It would also allow you to put the much needed comma after the word "opening". 2. The next sentence has "in place, the only". The comma causes an odd pause in meaning - instead, replace the comma with "as", "and are", or some other link instead. 3. In the first sentence of "Background", the comma transforms a set of two items into a compound sentence which can be grammatically misleading. Just remove the comma. 4. "had been linked" - change to "were linked". 5. "was meanwhile abandoned" just sounds a little off. Move the meanwhile to the beginning of the sentence to allow for a temporal context before the information. 5. "by the mid 19th century" is a clause that should be moved to the end of the sentence as the word "by" stands either as a parenthetical clause at the beginning of a sentence or a clause at the end that places a temporal context to what is said before. 6. In the "Design" section, the phrase "the bridge expired, yet delays" and the sentence becomes too complicated. Turn the comma into a period and restart the next as its own sentence. You can keep the "yet", but a "however" may seem more rhetorically correct. 7. Soon after, the phrase "In the event" seems vague. 7. In "Structural", place a comma after "In 1884" and after "Over the next three years". 8. "subject to weight restrictions from early on" rhetorically, you are looking back to something that is progressing forward. Instead, try "from the beginning" or something similar. 9. "In early 1973" needs a comma after it and the phrase "in May 1973 a campaign" can be spiced up by just saying "a May 1973 campaign" as you are using "in" quite often. The next phrase "In 1990" also needs a comma after. etc. 10. As a final note - your language is starting to become more like Fawkner or Menkin than your previous works. You are introducing some complicated causes and the technical information may become lost. Just keep this in mind. Sometimes short declarative sentences can be a relief in reading a lot of condensed technical data in a row. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed the first two. Regarding 3, I think the comma's necessary; "Chelsea, three miles west of Westminster, and Battersea on the opposite bank" carries the correct meaning (Battersea is opposite Chelsea); "Chelsea, three miles west of Westminster and Battersea on the opposite bank" seems to me to imply that Battersea and Westminster are both three miles east of Chelsea and on the opposite bank of the river. Re 5, I've slightly reworded it. I've moved the "by the mid 19th century" slightly, but think it's necessary to keep it attached to this sentence. Re 6, I've split the sentence up altogether. I think the "in the event" should stay even though it's grammatically meaningless; grammatical purity isn't the be-all and end-all, and it breaks up a rather dull section on construction schedules. Re 8, I can't see an alternative to "subject to weight restrictions from early on", other than something equally waffly like "From early on it was subject to weight restrictions"; "From the beginning" would imply since opening, which wasn't the case, while using a date would require the reader to have remembered the construction date; this paragraph is just a brief summary of the problems which have already been covered in detail in preceding paragraphs. Re 9, agree and have reworded.
  • Re your point 10, I agree that this one is a lot wordier than the earlier ones in the series, but it's (hopefully) an artifact of the particular unusual nature of this one rather than a general deterioration in style. "Stone arch bridge" is a simple concept that one can assume the readers will understand; "Ordish-Lefeuvre Principle cable-stayed bridge/suspension bridge hybrid structure" is such an alien concept – even to people with an engineering background – that the technical aspects need to be explained in far more detail than usual. Unfortunately, "brilliant refreshing prose" and "flat wrought iron bars attached at one end to the bridge deck and linked at the other end to octagonal support columns by wire ropes composed of 1,000 ¹⁄₁₀-inch diameter wires" are never going to mix. – iridescent 11:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • In what I saw, there was no comma immediately after "Chelsea". "The historic industrial town of Chelsea on the north bank". If there was a comma in the place you stated, then I 100% agree with you. The set of two commas would create a parenthetical and the final comma wouldn't separate the other side of the conjunction "and" from the first clause. By the way, the 10th comment was solely that you know that I actually read these. :) Cheers. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Needs work on the prose, but there's a lot to like about article and subject. Can you find an independent copy-editor? I've looked only at the lead, which suggests that there are little glitches throughout.

• bridge's ... bridge ... bridge ... bridge ... bridge ... bridge (end of first para, start of second). Start by removing "of the bridge" and the "bridge" before "types"; possibly reword to avoid another. Use the background context more to avoid such repetition.
• "noun +-ing" is often clumsy: "led to the Greater London Council adding two concrete piers". Try "... Council's addition of two ...". Is that more formal and smoother? (Serious question, asking for your opinion ...).
• "today" better after "Consequently,"?
• for its tendency? "Due to" is avoidable.
• Comma splice after "over it". Use a semicolon? [Bah, my mistake.]
• I'm surprised that metric units aren't the main ones, converted into US units. it's your call, but why not be modern?
• Remove "throughout its existence"? And "in an effort"? Try a few sharpening-up exercises in redundancy here].
• pedestrianise ... some people would hate that; hard to see how it could be expressed as neatly, though.
• "to prolong" just a little nicer.
• Another "due to (these measures)", so I'm glad we got rid of the first one.
• However, it's condition continues [it's very clear "it" refers to the Albert here].
• "Due to" a third time ... "from traffic load".
• This is slightly long and cumbersome: "In 1992 the bridge was repainted and rewired, and now has an unusual colour scheme designed to increase its visibility in poor lighting conditions and hence avoid damage from collisions with shipping, and is illuminated by 4,000 bulbs at night."
• Very effective final sentence (stub is rarely good, but is here). Tony (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The "bridge bridge bridge" issue is one I'm aware of – and it affects everything in this series – but it's a tricky one to get around. Because "Albert Bridge" is the name and obviously needs to be spelled out in full, "road bridge" is what it is and needs to be spelled out in full, and "cable-stayed bridge", "suspension bridge" and "beam bridge" are technical terms that again need to be spelled out in full, at least on first use, while the bridge was built by the Albert Bridge Company, there isn't an obvious way round it, even though it leads to repetition of "bridge". Because there were two construction projects running concurrently – Chelsea Embankment and the bridge itself – on quite a lot of occasions "it" isn't sufficient as it needs to be clear which project's opening date etc is being discussed. I've done a second pass through and removed as many instances of "the bridge" as I can without distorting the meanings or making sections unclear, but I'm not sure it can be "de-bridged" any further.
  • Personally, I think "led to the Greater London Council adding two concrete piers" is clearer than "Council's addition of two…" – but I have no strong opinions either way. If you (or anyone) thinks rewording would be an improvement, feel free.
  • I've cleared out any "due to"s that aren't attached to nouns/pronouns.
  • Disagree about the comma splice in "Nicknamed "The Trembling Lady" because of its tendency to vibrate when large numbers of people walked over it, signs at the entrances warning troops…" It could be split into two sentences – "Nicknamed…" and "Signs warn…", but I don't think this sentence is unreasonably long and I don't see that splitting would add any clarity; beeping the sentence together makes it clear that the nickname, the signs and the vibration are all connected.
  • Totally disagree about metrication of units. This is an article in British English, on a British topic, and Britain has not adopted the metric system. For articles on topics that potentially relate to other countries, or in fields such as aviation where metric units are standard even in non-metric countries, metric units are appropriate to allow comparison, but neither is the case here.
  • I can't see a problem with "in an effort" in this particular case. It needs to be made clear that it was an attempt to limit the number of vehicles using it. Likewise "has remained open to vehicles throughout its existence" – I can't think of any rewording that wouldn't lengthen it unnecessarily and/or require negatives. I'm not sure that just "It has remained open to vehicles" would make it sufficiently clear that the meaning it "it has not closed to vehicles at any point", not "it is not currently closed to vehicles".
  • Agree, have split the sentence.

I think that's all of them. Of all this series this is the one that was always going to cause problems. As per my comments to Ottava above, because it deals with a particular obscure type of design that a reader can't be expected to be familiar with, it needs to go into far more dull technical detail than the other articles (I can say "Chelsea Bridge is a suspension bridge" and assume people will understand what I mean, but "Albert Bridge is an Ordish–Lefeuvre Principle bridge" needs a long explanation). Plus, the fact that three separate projects are being discussed – Albert Bridge, Battersea Bridge and Chelsea Embankment – mean it needs to constantly be made clear which project is under discussion. – iridescent 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Wow, from DYK to FAC (and very likely, FA) in a matter of days. ceranthor 13:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Image concern as follows:

• File:Albert Bridge 14 May 2006.JPG: the source contradicts the GFDL license here by stating "All photos are copyright protected." The uploader's only media actitivies are to upload some photos from amoore's Pbase collection. I have asked for him to confirm his or her identity that should eliminate such ambiguity in the future.[71]

All other images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I've had a quick skim through the CC-by-SA images on Flickr and replaced it with File:Albert Bridge illuminations.jpg, which illustrates the same point, is arguably better composed (with the reflection in the water) and hopefully should be unambiguously free. – iridescent 19:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    • No problem with yvescosentino's image. Images okay. Jappalang (talk) 11:41, 9 June 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 32 has no last access date and has the publisher run into the link title.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Fixed the {{cite journal}} that had crept in. Regarding ref 32, this is again an artifact of the {{IoE}} citation template which uses non-standard formatting; I've manually added an access date in this case, but (as per our previous conversations on the matter) this is going to come up with every listed building article. – iridescent 13:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • (pokes Iri) then be proactive and fix it before it comes to FAC! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment

Shouldn't the article mention that the bridge linked Middlesex and Surrey? At the time it was built it was partly in each county (assuming centre of Thames as county boundary). Mjroots (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion Ignor the {{IoE}} and use {{cite web}} instead. See any of the UK windmill articles I've created where the mill is a listed building. Mjroots (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Re linking Middlesex and Surrey, I'm not sure it warrants mentioning; the boundaries were redrawn in 1889, so it only linked them for 16 years. By this period both Battersea and Chelsea had been swallowed by the growth of London and were under the de facto control of the Metropolitan Board of Works, despite formally being in Middlesex and Surrey.

I prefer to keep the {{IoE}} template if possible, as using the template means that if/when English Heritage change the database format, all listed building articles can be updated with a single edit to the template, as opposed to updating the 700+ articles using it individually. The sensible thing would be to make {{IoE}} consistent with {{citation}}, but it would be harder than it sounds, as every single usage of it would then need to be checked. – iridescent 15:15, 13 June 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 21:30, 16 June 2009 [72].

---

Magnetosphere of Jupiter

Nominator(s): Ruslik, Serendipodous.

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a vital article for the Solar System WikiProject. It was which written in the past several month essentially from the scratch and passed a peer review. I should warn that the article is complected and requires an effort to understand. I tried to make it as simple as possible, however, magnetospherics is a complicated subject, which is difficult to write about. I still hope that the complexity of the article will not be dissuaded reviewers from reviewing it. Ruslik_Zero 18:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This is co-nomination with Serendipodous. Ruslik_Zero 13:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) Serendi^podous 15:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments: The complexity of the article does not dissuade me from reviewing it, but from what I've seen so far, it will likely dissuade readers from reading it. In order to help remedy this, I have initiated a line-by-line review which, per this suggestion by SandyGeorgia, is being listed at the article's talk page. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

  Fixed everything except that magnetic field and magnetosphere are not the same thing. Ruslik_Zero 10:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  Would you mind responding to the concerns individually on the talk page? It would make more sense to keep any discussion which might arise (such as magnetosphere vs. magnetic field) connected to the relevant concern rather than cluttering up this page. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'll leave sporadic comments here as I go through the article, as I can't review it in one sitting. But so far, in the lede, several possessives disrupt the flow of the article when read out loud (minor issue). In the discovery section, you have to make sure you don't leave the audience behind. I'm sort of knowledgeable in this stuff, but I got lost in the DAM until I realized you were talking about the wavelengths of the particular electromagnetic emission. You may want to link to wavelength there somehow. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 10:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• It is located at the distance from 45 to 100 Rj (where Rj=71,492 km is the radius of Jupiter) from the planet at the subsolar point; the unfixed point at which the Sun appears directly overhead.[6] - an emdash might be better instead of the semicolon, but that's not my main complaint. The wording about the positioning of the subsolar point is not clear; do you mean that the subsolar point moves? If it does, depending on what? Variations of the solar wind, orbital elements of Jupiter, rotation of the planet, or other factors? Also, "at the distance" sounds awkward, for some reason. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 10:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Tend to Support - the quality has improved a lot. The article is well written. That said, the review process is not finished yet. Materialscientist (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Jupiter.Aurora.HST.mod.jpg is by the nominator and is unreadable. I strongly recommend increasing letters there. If not possible, the image should be stretched (nearly) full width. A bit of cropping is also advised.

    I increased font size. Ruslik_Zero 13:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, symbols could and should be larger and readable even in a thumb image (there is plenty of space in that figure). This is not nitpicking.Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

    Increased further. Ruslik_Zero 09:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Radio emissions of Solar System planets.png - Abbreviations should be explained in the figure caption.

    This will make the caption very long. Ruslik_Zero 13:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    The unspoken rule is delete unexplained abbreviations or explain them in the caption; or both. KOM,HOM,DAM are defined in the text. I was referring to SKR,AKR,TKR,UKR,NKR. The caption there can still be expanded 2-4 fold. Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

    I added explanation. Ruslik_Zero 09:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  • PIA04433 Jupiter Torus Diagram.jpg needs cropping.

    Cropped. Ruslik_Zero 09:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "Jupiter's field also has quadrupole, octupole and higher components, though they are weaker by an order of magnitude" - weaker than what ? Off course multipoles are weaker than the dipole; and if you compare with Earth, its dipole is weaker 10 times too. Materialscientist (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    Why Of course? The higher moments may be comparable with dipole. Ruslik_Zero 13:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    I am happy to admit my wrongs, but please enlighten me on the following: multipoles originate from series expansion of magnetic energy by a small parameter (general procedure in physics when the function is unknown). For the process to be justifiable, the series must rapidly decrease with the order (of the multipole). When the multipoles are comparable to the dipole, the series will not converge, and the whole expansion procedure is incorrect. Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

    I have never said that all harmonics are comparable to the dipole. Of course, beginning with some n they start to decrease. I only meant that the dipole is not necessary the strongest component. For example, the Sun's magnetic field is generally non-dipolar. Ruslik_Zero 09:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "This makes Jupiter's magnetic field 10 times stronger than Earth's, and its magnetic moment 18,000 times larger" - I guess this hinges on the difference in the radii, which should be mentioned if so. Materialscientist (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    Could you clarify this comment? Ruslik_Zero 09:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

    Magnetic moment is a product of the equatorial surface field and the cube of the planetary radius; that is why 18,000. We know that, but the reader might not even know the ratio of radii Jupiter/Earth. This all needs to be included, in some, perhaps simplified form. Materialscientist (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

    Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 08:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "and is remarkably stable; no changes in its strength or structure have been observed since the first measurements were taken by the Pioneer spacecraft in the mid-1970s" - weasel. Please specify the stability. Materialscientist (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    I added a stability estimate. Ruslik_Zero 09:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "it would appear five times larger than the full moon in the sky despite its far greater distance" - Weasel again. Please mention number for the distance ratio. Materialscientist (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    Mentioned. Ruslik_Zero 09:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  • You heavily use "current" without explaining its particles: electrons ? ions ? If ions, which ones ?

    This is not really important. The current is defined simply as curl of B. Ruslik_Zero 13:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    Disagree. Why it is important: you mentioned in the article electrons, oxygen and sulfur ions, and the reader will extrapolate that those cause the Jupiter currents. You must address what constitutes the current. If it is unknown yet, please describe it that way. Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

    This question is not so simple and can not be answered unequivocally. For one thing, the division into the ion and electron components depends on the choice of the frame of reference. For instance, in the frame where the plasma as a whole is at rest, all currents are electronic. Another example: the plasma in the magnetosphere co-rotates with the planet (with velocity of 300 km/s in the case of Jupiter), and the ring current flows in the direction of the co-rotations. What does this actually mean? It means that ions move slightly (by 0.2 km/s) faster than electrons. A question arises: if this current is ionic (because ions move slightly faster than electrons) or electronic (because electrons move slower)? If I make any these two statements I will likely mislead readers. Ruslik_Zero 09:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "It consists of two lobes, with the magnetic field in the northern lobe pointing away from Jupiter and the southern pointing towards it. The lobes are separated by a thin layer of plasma called the tail current sheet." - strongly recommended to add a picture on that (even Earth's one is better than nothing) - it relies too much on imagination. Materialscientist (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    I added an image. Ruslik_Zero 13:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "The electrical conductivity of the plasma within the torus is not infinite, and as a result the plasma slowly leaks away from Jupiter." - very unconvincing causality. I suggest accurate reformulation of the reason for plasma loss, or, if too many reasons, avoid causality at all. Materialscientist (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    I reworded this part. Ruslik_Zero 13:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  • When discussing the field shape, you use "disk" and "flattened pancake-like structure". If there is no difference between those, please unify, if there is, please explain. Materialscientist (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    Clarified. Ruslik_Zero 09:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  • The sentence "A current flows from the ionosphere along the magnetic field lines to the equatorial ..." is much too heavy and should be split up.Materialscientist (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    I can not find this sentence. Ruslik_Zero 09:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

    I broke it. Serendi^podous 09:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I took initiative and done much of minor copyediting. Please check as I might have accidentally distorted the meaning. I couldn't fix "This current then moves radially away from the planet within the plasma sheet and finally returns to the planetary ionosphere long the polar field lines from the outer reaches of the magnetosphere". Please do.Materialscientist (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

    Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 09:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  • The infobox states that the Magnetosphere of Jupiter was discovered by Pioneer 10 in 1973, which seems odd: As the text states, lots of reliable evidence existed before that. Materialscientist (talk) 05:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

    It is a matter of opinion. I think that "discovered" means measured directly. Ruslik_Zero 09:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I do oppose deletion of my adds "Ionian (i.e. pertaining to Io)" and Jovian (i.e. pertaining to Jupiter)" by Serendipodous. Please keep in mind that most readers will not understand those terms, even though they became part of English. Materialscientist (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • What's wrong with Ionian and Jovian? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

      Nothing, just too many people would have to look up the dictionary :) Materialscientist (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

      No, I mean linking the terms... you get a nice tooltip when you hover over a link, it's not even necessary to click it... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

      It is software dependent (delayed on my PC); not everyone would know they should mouse-point and wait; those comments in brackets are clearer. Materialscientist (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

      They are also shown in the status bar, and they're clickable as well. The parenthetical clauses disrupt the flow of the text, IMO. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  • More to come. Materialscientist (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I have been looking over this article with a watchful eye since early March, and I think it is now of FA standard. I saw it in March after being one of Ruslik's TPSers. :) ceranthor 19:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comments I have noted several inconsistencies in the citation style. Some issues are:

• "et al." vs "et al.". (italics or not).
• Number of authors names mentioned before "et al.": The most common convention is to name only the first author before the "et al." this article almost consistently uses 3. Which would be OK if used consistently, but there are also references that list all 10+ authors.
• "full names" vs initials: Some refs list the full names while others use only initials. The article should decide on which the use consistently. (Also if initials are used decide on a format consistently ("Doe, J.W." vs. "Doe, J. W." vs. "J.W. Doe" etc.)
• Use of "and" with multiple authors: decide whether not use "and", and whether it should be precded by a "," ";" or nothing at all.

(TimothyRias (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

Fixed I think. Serendi^podous 10:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You missed a couple of extra spaces. (I fixed them.) Just one more thing: The citations mix "American" and "British" styles for capitalization of titles. I usual prefer having only one of the two styles, but I'm not sure that that is generally agreed upon. (TimothyRias (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

I don't know the difference between American and British capitalisation standards. Serendi^podous 10:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

American: capitalize all nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs.

British: Capitalize only first letter and proper nouns. (TimothyRias (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

Fixed. I did keep one phrase capitalised, though, because it formed an acronym. Serendi^podous 12:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Almost everything adressed. The only issue remaining is the number of authors mentioned before "et al." some refs have 2 others have 3. (TimothyRias (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

I only found one, but it's fixed. Serendi^podous 10:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support—It satisfies the FA criteria, although I found a few pretty minor issues:
  • "Jupiter's magnetic field forces the torus to rotate with the same speed and direction as the planet's rotation." By speed, I assume this means angular velocity? Or perhaps 'angular speed' would work here?

Fixed. Serendi^podous 05:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• • The illustration with the caption, "An artist concept of the magnetosphere", includes the term 'plasmasphere'. This is not mentioned in the text, so I think it needs clarification.
  • To me the statement, "...the magnetic field in the southern(northern) lobe pointing toward(away from) Jupiter," seems perhaps self-contradictory and hence confusing. It also needs spaces before the parentheses.

    Fixed. Serendi^podous 05:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    I clarified the meaning of the 'plasmasphere'. Ruslik_Zero 16:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "...seriously disturbed by its interaction with the plasma sheet" is somewhat vague. Perhaps an example would serve?
  • "A particularly interesting feature..." seems mildly PoV-ish.

    fixed. Serendi^podous 05:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    I added an example. Ruslik_Zero 16:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  Good stuff. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Image concern as follows:

• File:Jovian magnetosphere (view from the north pole).png: reference for this diagram?

Other Images are appropriately sourced, and verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• I added a reference to the image caption. Ruslik_Zero 15:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  The references for the image are preferred to be in the image page as well. I have added your reference to it. Jappalang (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Support A shining example of a featured quality article. A good article that provides a well-balanced and informative coverage of the subject. My only minor concerns were the rewording of some minor phrases like "particularly interesting" as mentioned above but most of these earlier problems seem to have been attended to. Nice work!. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for support. Ruslik_Zero 16:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding jargon and linking issues throughout (what's a tail sheet current?). And an inline to be resolved in the lead. Can someone please go through and make sure all technical terms are defined or linked on first occurrence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed your inline issue, but it is kinda difficult to decide what's jargon and what isn't. Serendi^podous 19:00, 16 June 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 21:32, 16 June 2009 [73].

---

Yamato class battleship

Nominator(s): Cam ^(Chat) 03:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]}

The largest, heaviest, and most heavily-armed battleships to ever grace the ocean. This particular article has been in the works since October 2008. Most of the content was added by me in December 2008, with TheEd17 and TomStar81 adding large sections as well. It passed its MilHist A-Class Review in January 2009, and has since undergone a copyedit by Bellhalla. As such, I feel that it is read for Featured Article Status. Regards, Cam ^(Chat) 03:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - I am available almost continuously until the weekend of June 12 to deal with issues that may arise.

• Involved = Neutral - ...but I would like to note that after the addition of a little bit that went into the design of these monsters, I think that it is ready for the star. A deafening slap on the back goes to Cam for the excellent job he has done, while another slap goes to Cla68 (talk · contribs) for his help as well! :-) A fun collab all around. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Support About time my Iowas had a worthy opponent to compete against ;) As always, a spectacular job, and an article truly worthy a of a bronze star. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Provisional Oppose. I think this a great article, but I have a number of concerns. Most of them shouldn't take much time at all to address, after which I will gladly support.

Resolved comments from Cool3

• • I imagine it's customary to do so, but it does somewhat bother me that the title is "Yamato class battleship" but the first sentence reads Yamato class battleships". Feel free to ignore this if it's just the way things are done.

Yes, that is normally how it is done. :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "The class carried the largest naval artillery ever fitted to a warship, 460-millimetre (18.1 in) naval guns, each of which was capable of firing 2,998-pound (1,360 kg) shells over 26 miles (42 km)." How many were on each ship?

Nine. I've added that in. Cam ^(Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I've added a fact tag to the first paragraph of the Design section

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Cam wrote that as an entry into some of the other paragraphs (i.e. it is cited below in the next 2–3 paragraphs?) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You're correct there Ed. It's simply a lead-in to the next three paragraphs, and as such the statements it makes have been cited to death further down. Cam ^(Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree here. I can see the "expansionist movements," being cited below, but I think the rest either needs to be rewritten or sourced. The reference to "Japanese industrial power" isn't really borne out. Instead, the section talks about how Japanese industrial weakness shaped the design "However, the U.S. possessed significantly greater industrial power than Japan, with 32.2% of worldwide industrial production compared to Japan's 3.5% of worldwide production... As such, Japanese industrial power could never hope to compete with American industrial ability" There is a reference to intimidation, but I see no harm in repeating that reference, just for the sake of having cited text. Cool3 (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, I've added in the cite. Cam ^(Chat) 03:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• • " and was therefore free to build larger warships than the other major maritime powers." This needs rephrasing. As written it makes it sound like the battleships were larger than the countries. It should read "free to build larger warships than those of the other major..." or something similar.

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "It was hoped that these vessels, which were designed to be superior to any vessel created by the United States Navy, would intimidate the United States into appeasing Japanese aggression in the Pacific." "It was hoped" sounds a little weasel wordish. Who hoped it?

Japanese government planners? To me, it is evident that someone in the government hoped that, so I'm not so sure that this is weasel-ish (buuut I could be wrong!) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Sure, that's what I assume as well (it seems evident), but then the article should just say "Japanese government planner hoped that these vessels..." rather than "It was hoped." Cool3 (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded it to be a little bit more specific. Cam ^(Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "Armor varied between enough protection from the fire of a 460 mm to enough to defend against a 410 mm gun." I read this sentence several times and I still find it confusing. First of all, the order of the sentence suggests to me that a 410mm gun is more powerful than a 460mm gun. I think it would make more sense to put the 410mm first (unless I'm mistaken and a 410mm is more powerful than a 460 in which case you should probably explain why that is). Also, I think that the wording should be tweaked a bit. "Armor varied between providing enough protection..." reads better to me.
    • Sorry, I'm the one who wrote that; I rewrote it about five times and now it seems to me that it was worse than my first draft. :) What I meant was that the armor in some of the designs was sufficent against 410 mm while the armor in the remaining was enough to defend against 460 mm guns. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I've tried to copyedit it; please take a look. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
        • • Looks good to me :) Cool3 (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "The diesels were removed from the design because problems with". This should read "because of problems"
    • Done. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "making the ships of the class the largest battleships yet constructed." vs. "the vessels of the class were the largest, heaviest, and most heavily-armed battleships ever constructed." Which is it? Largest ever or largest up to that time?

I think that the first part is phrased that way because larger battleships were planned but never built (like the H class or Super Yamato class). —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded it a bit to say both. Cam ^(Chat) 04:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "each of which weighed more than a destroyer" What kind of destroyer? I imagine that at some time a destroyer larger than those guns was built. Also, what is the actual weight?

Added weight in the "armament section", and corrected statement to "1930's-era destroyer". Cam ^(Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "over the objections of naval aviators" rather than sinking those objections into a footnote, why not incorporate them in the article?

Because it disrupts the flow way too much to put that large bit back into the main text. Cam ^(Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "the partially completed hull of the fourth vessel was scrapped in 1942" Any idea how close it was to completion?

None of my sources say anything about it, I'd assume not very built. Cam ^(Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Summarizing Garzke and Dulin, p. 84, section "Warship Number 111—Construction": ship never named, laid down @ Kure Navy Yard on 7 November 1940, hull was 30% complete in Dec 1941, work was stopped "when the Japanese evaluated their capital-ship construction program, everything above the double bottom was scrapped, four large submarines were built on the double bottom, all nine 460mm guns were canceled as well. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "both Yamato and Musashi spent the majority of their careers in naval bases at Brunei, Truk, and Kure, before participating in the Battle of Leyte Gulf" seems to imply that the two did nothing before Leyte Gulf, but "Yamato served as the flagship of the Japanese Combined Fleet during the Battle of Midway" and "Yamato, as part of the 1st Battleship Division, deployed on multiple occasions to counteract American carrier-raids on Japanese island bases." as well as "On 11 February 1943, Musashi relieved her sister ship Yamato as flagship of the Combined Fleet." clearly show that the two ships were doing more than just staying in port. This should be acknowledged in the lead.

Alright. I'll reword that, since they did spend most of their time in the bases, yet deployed on several occasions to counter American forces. Cam ^(Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "it is reported that one of the shells may have exploded early" Reported by whom?

No clue. You'd have to ask Ed, as he added that bit. Cam ^(Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Sorry if I just missed it somewhere, but what material was the armor plating made from?

None of my sources actually say. I'd assume refined steel. Cam ^(Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Question: which armor plate? Quoting from Garzke and Dulin, p. 96, there was:

• Vickers Hardened - a face-hardened steel armor widely used on the main-battery turrets and in the main side belt. Generally, it was used for thicknesses over 200 mm.
• Molybdenum Non-cemented - A nickel-chromium-molybdenum quality armor used in armor-deck plating of 75 mm and greater thicknesses. Ballistics test conducted at the proving grounds at Kamegabuki proved this armor plate to be superior to the homogenous Vickers steel plates by a factor of 10 to 15 percent.
• Copper included non-cemented - intended for the armor-deck protection, primarily in areas where splinter protection was desired. The exact nature of the armor desired was obtained by varying the chromium and nickel content. Considered superior to the New Vickers Hardened Non-Cemented plates used on the Nagato. The presence of the nickel allowed the steel to be rolled and not develop brittle fracture properties. Characterized by very good steel-absorption performance, a criterion of crucial importance in armor plates.

Hope this helps :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a lot of very good information. I'd suggest adding it in to the armor section. Cool3 (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "In addition, the fuel consumption rate of both battleships was very high." Was the fuel consumption of the Shinano better?

They never got a chance to test it. She was sunk before her trials. Cam ^(Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "even though these would have probably been the "most powerful battleships in history"" A claim like that should be directly attributed to the person who made it in the text

It's in the citation in the next sentence. Cam ^(Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

By that I mean more than just a citation. I mean something like "even though Gardiner and Chesneau argue that these would have probably been the "most powerful battleships in history"" I don't think that this is absolutely necessary, but a claim like that should be clearly attributed. Sort of like if you say "George W. Bush is "the greatest President in history""; it introduces POV problems. It's much better to say "According to Jones, George W. Bush is "the greatest President in history"". Now "most powerful battleship" isn't as contentious as "greatest President" but I still think the text itself should associate the opinion with the person it belongs to unless it is the consensus view among scholars. Cool3 (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You make a very valid point. :-) I have added something along those lines into the article; is it sufficient? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 18:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks great to me. Good job! Cool3 (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • The infobox lists the class as carrying 7 aircraft, 2 catapults. Does this refer only to the Shinano? If so, it contradicts the article Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano which states that the Shinano 47 aircraft. Which number is correct?
    • I think that this is the number Yamato and Mushashi had? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

7 aircraft for battleships, 47 for carriers, I've fixed the infobox to reflect this. Cam ^(Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• • The article Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano also states that "To date, it is the largest warship to be sunk by a submarine". This seems like a fact worthy of inclusion in the section on the Shinano in the article, as that section feels a little light.

Added. Cam ^(Chat) 23:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • The "Cultural Significance" section makes what I would consider some extraordinary claims, but is fairly short. Is there anything else that could go in there? Any other significant appearances in popular culture? Also you state that " Yamato and Musashi have carried a notable presence in Japanese culture" has there been any sort of presence for Shinano?

To my knowledge, Shinano carries no such presence, given that she never actually completed a voyage. Cam ^(Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• • You refer on several occasions to the destruction of records related to the ships, etc. Where does the information that we do know come from?
    • It appears that most of the information came from interrogations/interviews of Japanese officers after the surrender. I've added this information to the article, and as it uses a difficult to find (online) reference, I am willing to provide a copy of the article to any of the principal authors via email. Cool3 (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Did the Yamato have any impact on any other designs for future ships (other than the proposed super-Yamato)?
    • Cam, did they affect the design of the Montana class? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In some way, I'd think so. I'll see if Tom can add something, or if I can pick something out of the Montana article. Cam ^(Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. They didn't directly influence any designs, seeing as American naval intelligence didn't actually know what their specs were, but they did lead to many of the Montana considerations. I have added a bit on that to the 'ships' section. Cam ^(Chat) 21:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "from 1934–1936, 24 designs were put forth" and "After these had been reviewed, two more designs were put forth, A-140-F3 and A-140-F4...they were used in the formation of the final preliminary study, which was finished on 20 July 1936" Are A-140-F3 and A-140-F4 included in the count of 24 designs or did these 2 come after those 24 designs? I'm highly confused on this point.

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat) 04:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I take it from the new wording, "two new designs were put forth" that these were in addition to the earlier 24? However, the two designs were also in 1936. Thus, " from 1934 to 1936, 24 designs were put forth" appears to be wrong as 26 designs would have been forward between those years. Might I suggest a change in wording to " from 1934 to 1936, 24 initial designs were put forth" or something similar to separate these from the later two? Cool3 (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed to your suggestion. Cam ^(Chat) 23:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, looking at the source, it gives specifics for 23 individual designs, including A-140-F₃ and A-140-F₄ and the final preliminary design of 20 July 1936 9A-140-F₅). I'd assume that the 24th was the final design? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've reworded it to reflect that. Cam ^(Chat) 21:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "sinking the American escort carrier Gambier Bay and a destroyer escort" any idea of the name of that destroyer escort?

I think it was the Johnston or the Samuel B. Roberts. I have to go back and check my sources, as the Battle off Samar page isn't really that reliable (or neutral, for that matter). Cam ^(Chat) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It was the Johnston, where she confirmed 6-inch hits and possible 18-inch hits. In the words of Steinberg, the 18-inch shells were so powerful that they simply pierced the destroyer "like a bullet going through tin foil" and failed to detonate. Cam ^(Chat) 16:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Once again, great article; I look forward to supporting in the future if and when you address my concerns. Cool3 (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It is my pleasure to support this article now. Cool3 (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes http://combinedfleet.com/ a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Cam would know better, but I believe that the authors of CombinedFleet are all military historians and/or authors. Anothony Tully (scroll to the bottom), Robert Hackett, Sander Kingsepp and Lars Ahlberg (scroll to the bottom again). I can go looking on Google Books if need be :) Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 15:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a very vague recollection we've discussed this site before in some other ship FAC, but I can't find it anywhere. And I've slept since then. Might ask Tom. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Asked. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 16:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the link. I had Cla68 send me the link for this exact reason. Cam ^(Chat) 23:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And noted on my cheatsheet also. So I won't have another senior moment... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - the armor section looks a little thin to me; it only has armor thicknesses for the belt and turrets (i.e., deck, conning tower, etc.). Also, did the ships use full-length belts or the "all or nothing" scheme? The section says that there were deficiencies that were to prove fatal; I'm sure this is in reference to the "soft bow" that doomed Musashi, but this needs to be mentioned and explained (and any other problems as well).
• As for the weaponry, there's a lot of good information at Navweaps for the 15cm gun, the 12.7cm gun (which is converted to 13cm in the article—that's wrong) and the 25mm AA gun. This might have some information on the 46cm gun that's not already in the article, but probably you've got it all. One last thing for now: it says that Yamato was refitted "in 1944"—can't we get anything more specific than that? I'll do a more comprehensive review of the article soon. Parsecboy (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • G&D have a lot on the armor; I'll attempt to add some. It say that the Yamto was... what? You forgot to finish your thought! :P —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 13:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
    • That's what you get when you have 4 browsers open to Wikipedia and you're trying to do too many things at once :P Parsecboy (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is an excellent article which meets the FA criteria. My only comment is that the photo in the infobox looks compressed (I'm using Google Chrome and have a 24" monitor if that helps) Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The photo looks OK on my netbook, so the problem must be at my end Nick-D (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I just cleared the cache of my main computer and the photo now looks fine. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article on this class of battleships. The article does what it's supposed to for an entry on a ship class- gives the reasons, background, and general specs for the class but leaves the operational details to the individual articles about each ship. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Terrific article, I hope it makes FA. I made some minor copyedits. You might want to check the hyphenated words for accuracy, I was not sure if some of them needed hyphens. I left them alone. NancyHeise ^talk 18:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Image concerns as follow:

• File:Musashi1944.png and File:Yamato1945.png: to verify the accuracy of the works, what are the sources for these drawings?

Other Images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks Jappalang. I've talked with Alexpl in a situation similar to this (I think it was during Design 1047 battlecruiser's FAC?), so I'll drop him a note. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I see that Alexpl has filled in the sources, so that is taken care of. Jappalang (talk) 05:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. This article is extremely well-written, researched and illustrated—altogether an excellent job. Jonyungk (talk) 05:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The most minor thing ever: "Two battleships of the class (Yamato and Musashi) were completed, while a third—the aircraft carrier Shinano—was converted to an aircraft carrier during construction." Why not "Two battleships of the class (Yamato and Musashi) were completed, while a third—Shinano—was converted to an aircraft carrier during construction."? Is it something to do with the links? Apterygial 10:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that does sound excruciatingly awkward. I'll change it to your suggested way. Cam ^(Chat) 22:39, 13 June 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 21:30, 16 June 2009 [74].

---

Jarome Iginla

Nominator(s): Resolute 22:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Lets see if we can go two for two on hockey articles! I've been working on this article off and on for a couple months now. Its had a PR, its passed GA and several people have reviewed the article. After some final work, I believe this article is ready to face the scrutiny of the FAC process. All of the images are free, and all sources should be formatted properly. I do have a mild concern about the City Lights News reference, but wanted to see what reviewers have to say about it. This is the first BLP article I've taken to FAC, so go easy on me.  ;) Resolute 22:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support My general impression is positive, and my comments are mostly minor:
• Emulating Fuhr, he played goal in his first two years of organized hockey before switching to the right wing. - makes it sound like Fuhr switched to right wing.
• Despite hockey's status as a sport dominated by white players, Iginla rarely experienced any difficulties in minor and junior hockey because of his race. - I'm not too sure what this sentence is trying to tell us. "Person doesn't suffer racist abuse" surely ought to be the norm, not something noteworthy. Does minor league ice hockey have a reputation for institutional racism? One the other hand, it says "rarely" which implies that there were some difficulties but doesn't say what.
• As a result of his success, he and the Flames struggled to agree on a new contract following the season. - surely he'd have had more of a struggle agreeing a new contract if he'd played abysmally ;) Maybe something like "His success added complexities to contract negotiations" would be better?
• There are occasional uses of informal terms which ought to be changed for something more formal e.g. when he suited up for his 804th career game
• a disappointing playoffs led many to question if Iginla had been playing with an injury - who were the many?

• All of the above have been reworded.

• The tone of the article is overwhelmingly positive towards the subject. Now, this is far better than having the opposite, but it does lead to concerns about hagiography. Reading the article we hear that this guy sets goalscoring records, captains his team and is a really nice guy too. So why isn't he as well-known as Wayne Gretzky? Presumably there are aspects of his game which have weaknesses. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well, fame is relative. Iginla is rewriting the Flames record book, but Gretzky rewrote the league record book. Also, Gretzky played a large chunk of his career the major media centres of Los Angeles and New York, while Iginla's been in Calgary his entire career. The most common fan complaint about Iginla is something I have not been able to find in a RS - that he has always turned down invitations from Hockey Canada to participate in the world championships. Some don't like that he apparently doesn't have enough "pride" at wearing the Canadian jersey as they would like. Lacking a reliable source for the argument though, I've not included it. Resolute 14:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments – First reaction here is also positive. Here are comments from the entire article. Normally I like to split them up, but I'm very busy here and want to get this review done in one shot.

• Why is there a comma after the birth date in the lead?
• Early life: "In addition to hockey, Iginla played baseball as a young man, where he was the catcher on the Canadian National Junior team." I don't see anything having to do with location before the comma, so try switching "where" to something else.

• Both comma issues fixed

• NHL career: Was there any media attention toward Iginla making his debut during the playoffs, or is that more common in hockey than I think?

• There wasn't much media attention, beyond the local coverage, that I was able to find. It is far more common for players to go to the minors when their junior season ends, but it isnt unheard of to go to the NHL directly. (Brennan Evans is another example of a Flame who's debut was in the playoffs)

• The Montreal Canadiens link here can be dropped, since there is already one in the previous section.
• Captaincy: "He was expected to play in the 2007 NHL All-Star Game in Dallas, however a knee injury forced him out of the game." Make the comma a semi-colon?
• I see "career low" and "career-high" a couple sentences apart.
• "He finished the season with 35 goals and 89 points, however a disappointing playoffs led to questions on whether Iginla had been playing with an injury." Another comma that should probably be a semi-colon.
• International play: "as Canada won its first Olympic gold medal in 50-years." Remove hyphen.
• Playing style: "Iginla is considered to be one of the pre-eminent power forwards in the game today." Watch time elements like "today"; I would just drop the word.
• Off the ice: "Iginla married his high school sweet heart". Is "sweet heart" normally two words in Canadian (British) English?
• "In 2002, while in Salt Lake City for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games". Drop one of the 2002s.

• Above issues fixed

• Does he have any endorsements besides Scotiabank?

• Probably. I'd have to search for it. The statement was a compromise with an editor who felt it was very important to have the Scotiabank reference in.

• I've found a source with another endorsement. Haven't found much else as of yet. Resolute 23:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Is a page number possible for reference 61 (Globe and Mail)?

• I'd have to go to the library to get the back issue, but that will have to wait at least a week due to some issues irl.

• I agree with Oldelpaso on the Playing style section—it reads like his game is universally strong. Are there any criticisms of his game that are regularly provided by the hockey media?

• He is known as a player who has to be "riled up" at times to be truly effective. I'll have to search for some RSes.

• Thanks to Maclean25, who provided me with the article, I've added a couple of known weaknesses in his game to the playing style section from a 2004 scouting report. Resolute 23:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Don't forget your non-breaking spaces for statistics (as annoying as they are to put in). Giants2008 (17-14) 01:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• You may have to explain what you are looking for wrt non-breaking spaces, lol. Otherwise, everything else should be fixed, pending a source search. Thanks, Resolute 15:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Non-breakers are supposed to be in between units of measurement; many of the recent sports FAs contain them in statistics, like this: 24 goals (click edit tab to see formatting). I personally don't care that much, but there are many others here who do. If you want help with this, just let me know. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• It seems a little silly to me to, but it's also an easy change. Done. Resolute 15:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support – A very good article that is at a higher level than the other sports bios I've seen come through here lately. Sourcing and writing are both solid, and photos are also quite good. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. A focused and well-crafted article. The City Light News reference which seems to be a reprint of an interview in Sports Spectrum magazine which seems ok but if you like you can reference it to "Superstar holds firm to faith: Jarome Iginla praises God for his scoring success; Don Retson. Edmonton Journal. Apr 20, 2002. p. B4." (but I haven't seen the 'mother is a Buddhist' thing anywhere. maclean 05:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment (I may or may not do a full review)

• "Iginla married his high school sweet heart, Kara, and the couple have three children:" the couple "has" or the couple "have"? Mm40 (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed, thanks. Resolute 15:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, 1a, possibly 1b, and 1c. There are some prose issues to deal with, below, but not many. I ran across some possibly irregular use of sources, also listed below. My third concern is that I don't see anything here about race. I know black hockey players deal with such issues—you didn't find any sources that talk about Iginla dealing with racism on the ice? I have read similar stories about Anson Carter and others, so I know they exist. I see there is an Iginla biography at the bookstore—did you review its applicability?

• I had a statement in his early life section where Iginla stated he rarely experienced any sort of racism that I removed per a suggestion above. ([75]). However, while Iginla has talked about his race and hockey, I've not come across any significant story of racial prejudice. I will add another good anecdote to his early life section, however. As far as the biography goes, are you referring to The Sensational Jarome Iginla? I haven't read it, but given it's evident style, I am not certain it serves as anything more than a Hockey Canada self-promotional puff-piece. I will check it out, however, to see if there is anything of value. Breaking the Ice has a chapter on Iginla, but given the author seems to have written the book with the preconception that every accolade a black hockey player failed to win was the direct result of racism, I simply can not take it seriously on this topic without a second RS to support the belief, and I have found none.

• • "and finished as the runner-up in voting for the Calder Memorial Trophy as rookie of the year" What do you think of mentioning here who won, so we don't have to go look it up? (Bryan Berard? Seriously?)

• Yeah, seriously. And added.

• • "After losing all three games, scoring only three goals, the Flames agreed to a three-year contract worth US$4.9 million, plus bonuses." Careful not to imply something that the source may not. I didn't go digging for the source, but we need to check this.

• Fair enough. Simplified the statement to state only that he missed the first three games.

• • "Coming off an invite to Canada's Olympic summer camp before the season" What does this mean? He went or he didn't? Also, "coming off" is too colloquial, I think.

• Fixed

• • "... as Iginla finished tied in voting points with Canadiens goaltender José Théodore who was named MVP based on receiving a greater number of first place votes" This is ungainly and could bear revision. Among the issues, the "finished tied" is redundant; you can just write that someone "tied" and it has the same meaning.

• reworded

• • "However, one voter, believed to be from Quebec—Théodore and the Canadiens' home province—inexplicably left Iginla off his ballot entirely." Hm, careful. The source reads "rumoured", which is a fair bit apart from "believed". Overall, that bit seems like irresponsible journalism. Also, what is "entirely" doing?

• I've reworded to rumoured to match the source used. And while Dowbiggin might well be my least favourite sports journalist, the fact that a writer from Quebec deliberately left Iginla off is not really a rumour. Breaking the Ice discusses it as well, and I could probably find more sources if I spent some time digging through the Herald and Sun archives from the time of the vote.

• • "Iginla was a member of Team Canada's Olympic gold medal–winning hockey team in 2002." Is that an en dash? Should be a hyphen.

• lol, oops. Fixed

• • "This did not come to pass, as he signed a two-year ..." Yuck.. much prefer "These fears were unfounded, as he signed ..."

• Good point, reworded

• • Regarding his being the first "black" captain... you say it outright in the lead, but later on you mention that this status is dubious. That's a bit misleading.

• This kind of lies in the question of "how black is black", which is why there is some debate. I've reworded the lead to match the body

• • "said former captain Craig Conroy of his decision to relinquish the captaincy to Iginla."

• Not sure what you are concerned about here.

• • "his $7-million per season wage was considered to be less than he would have received had he tested free agency." Why the hyphen? And, considered by whom? This is the problem with using passive tense. The source is subscription-only.

• The hyphen is because I get nailed on that all the time and haven't quite figured it out yet.  ;) And yeah, Duhatschek left the Globe not too long ago, but the paper immediately threw all his work behind paywalls. I was trying to show the contrast in this contract deal vs his first two, which were quite contentious. I removed everything but what his pay is.

• • Why "quarter-finals"? The source uses no hyphen.

• I believe that "quarterfinals" and "quarter-finals" are both valid, and since I am not using a direct quote, went with what I typically use. It's a carry over from my work with junior articles, as the WHL often hyphenates the words.

• • "Not a fast skater, opponents are able to restrict his ability to move if his teammates rely on him to lead the offence too much." Dangling modifier ("not a fast skater" incorrectly modifies "opponents") and... I'm not sure about using a 5-year-old scouting report to make a general statement written as if anyone has said it still applies today. I would prefer you qualify that this came from a scouting report.

• If I didn't think it was still applicable, I wouldn't have used it.  ;) I've tried rewording, though I'm not entirely sure I am satisfied with the new wording.

--Laser brain (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the review. Hopefully I have addressed your concerns. Resolute 23:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support, I think everything has been addressed. The Conroy thing was a mistake; I was going to comment that I thought coaches had to transfer the captaincy, but I was mistaken. The Sensational Jarome Iginla doesn't look too serious. Good work! --Laser brain (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review: all images are self-taken and appropriately licensed for free use. No issues. Jappalang (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• FLAMES SUCK!!!!111!! Er, I mean Comments - Generally excellent, as expected. I've done some copyediting and light rewriting that you might want to have a look at to make sure it's okay: [76] A few issues before I support:
  • "Iginla scored 33 goals and 71 points in 1994–95, his first full WHL season." We could maybe do with some explanation of what made 1993-94 not a full season for him; did he join the team part way through the season, or was he just not a regular player, or what?
  • The section on the Hart voting is slightly confusing; why was it inexplicable for a voter to leave Iginla off his ballot?
  • The timelines are slightly confused in the last paragraph before "Captaincy". What is meant by "2002 season"? The use of the phrase "before the season" in the next sentence suggests that the season being referred to is the same as the one in the previous sentence, which I gather it isn't.
  • "Iginla fell back to 67 points in 2002–03 as he battled injuries..." Did he miss many games as a result of these injuries, or was it just that they diminished his performance?
  • "He was a leader on that team and old enough to where he'd been there a long time." This sentence doesn't make any sense to me; I see that it's faithfully copied from the source, but if I'm correct that it doesn't make sense it might not be the best choice to include.
  • The article varies on the capitalization of "Most Valuable Player"; is there a reason for this?
  • I don't spend a lot of time in sports articles, so I'm not sure what conventions are regarding tone, but much of the language in this article seems more in keeping with the language of sports journalism than what I'd initially expect from a Wikipedia FA ("suited up", etc.). I won't oppose over it, but I wanted to bring the point up for discussion.
  • There's a section devoted to international play, but international tournaments are also mentioned in "Junior career" and "NHL career"; is there a reason for this?
  • The medal record table does not include the 2006 Olympics; I presume that this is because Canada did not medal there, but I'm concerned that the omission makes it look like Canada has won gold at every event at which Iginla has competed. Thoughts? Is this a well-established convention in sports articles?
  • Do we know when he was married? The year seems conspicuously absent from the sentence describing his marriage. To me, anyway.

That's about it; I look forward to supporting. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:39, 16 June 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 21:30, 16 June 2009 [77].

---

Ice hockey at the Olympic Games

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking a break from my evil mission to turn the site into Homerpedia. After a lot of hard work and time wasting, I'm finally ready to try this. My goal is to get it as the TFA at some point during the 2010 Winter Olympics. There are two possible concerns. 1) length. At 6895 words it's longer than your average FA (including Canada, Barack Obama, William Shakespeare, Alzheimer's disease, King Arthur and Western Front. Although, to be fair, those pages all have a lot of branch articles) although I don't think it's of much concern. 2) Lack of a bolded title. I couldn't think any that didn't seem extremely forced, and I am open to suggestions. Enjoy! -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment – I've been doing some light copy-edit work during the last couple of days. Will report back when I finish. One thing stopped me in my tracks, though: "The number of teams was increased to 14 so that there would be eight teams and a round-robin tournament could be used." Eight teams in what? The second round? This bit from the Rules section needs some fixing. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed wording to "The number of teams was increased to 14 so that a preliminary round-robin tournament consisting of eight teams could be held. The top two teams from that round joined the "Big Six" in the finals." Does that help? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Support – As I said up there, I went through the whole text and gave it a light touch. Didn't see the need for much more, since it's a great read overall. A comprehensive article that's nicely written and sourced. Only complaint I have is that I thought more hyphens could have been sprinked in here and there, but that's not enough to prevent my support. If it becomes an issue, I'll be happy to assist. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. My only real concern is to wonder why the lead mentions the 1924-88 format for determining the medals but not the current format. Would it not make more sense to focus on how it is done now, and leave the historical process to the history section? Otherwise, all I found were some very small formatting/copyediting issues which I've corrected. Resolute 17:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • There used to be several sentences about it, but I thought that it went on too long, so I removed it. I have re-added a small bit about the current format. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments. The acronyms for the National Hockey League, International Ice Hockey Federation, and World Anti-Doping Agency are all introduced twice. Also the section 1980: The Miracle on Ice should probably be 1980: The "Miracle on Ice" (with quotation marks). 98.166.139.216 (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • They are introduced once in the lead and once in the body of the article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments — In general, this seems an extremely good article, well written, lots of well-sourced info, and images. I'm ready to give my approval once the comments below are addressed. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Lead:
    • I'd rephrase the first two sentences like this: "Ice hockey has been played at the Olympic Games since a men's tournament was introduced at the 1920 Summer Olympics. In 1924, it was transferred permanently to the Winter Olympic Games programme."
      • I used half of your suggestion. I think the current opening sentence works best, but I switched the second to "The men's tournament was introduced at the 1920 Summer Olympics and was transferred permanently to the Winter Olympic Games programme in 1924."
    • I think that the sentence "The women's tournament was first held at the 1998 Winter Olympics." is kinda floating there in that paragraph. since there's a special paragraph just for the women's tournament, I'd take out this sentence.
      • I wanted to try to include a mention of the women's event in the opening lead, just so that it doesn't look like it's an afterthought.
        • OK. I concede on this, since you mention both tournaments in the first paragraphs and then specify more about them on the following ones.
    • That last paragraph is time-dependent, no? I don't think it's necessary at all to appear in the lead.
      • Removed.
  • Inception as an Olympic sport:
    • How about changing the section title to a more simple "Olympic inception"?
    • Italicise foreign words/expressions/names like "Ligue Internationale de Hockey sur Glace" (and give English translation)
      • Added italics, but I'm not sure if a translation is needed. My French sucks, but I think it's along the lines of "International Ice Hockey League"
        • Your French sucks but you can actually translate it; others might not. The section is petite, a translation wouldn't bulk it up.
          • My point was that it is basically just the French translation of "International Ice Hockey Federation" (and, I just found out that that is still the French name of it).
    • Programme or program? I've seen both forms up to this part. Stick to one English variant.
      • Went with programme.
    • In the last paragraph, I'd remove the last two sentences as they're not specifically related to this section. On the third sentence, give more emphasis to ice hockey by saying "Together with figure skating, ice hockey was permanently integrated..."
      • The last two sentences are just some background information. They are a little off-topic, but I think they assist the reader's overall understanding.
        • Like you said, they're a bit off-topic; I believe that if you remove them, readers won't miss it. It's your call, but if you decide for their removal, take attention that this paragraph will become too small.
          • That was on my mind. I could go either way I suppose.
  • Rules:
    • Why don't you start this section with the "Game rules" sub-section?
      • My rationale was that it went in order of how the process works. First qualification, then player selection, then the actual playing of the games, then doping. They just seemed to fit in that order really well. I could switch them if you like.
        • I understand your logic.
  • General:
    • Some image captions are too long. Do not specify a fixed width; let the "thumb" parameter do it.
      • I assume you are mainly referring to Image:Slovakia men's ice hockey team in 2002.jpg which has the caption "In 2002, NHL players were allowed to participate, but the league did not go on break during the preliminary round. Teams participating in that round, including Slovakia (2002 team pictured), were affected because they were denied the full use of their top players." I have tried shortening it.
        • How about this: "In 2002, Slovakia's team (pictured) was affected by NHL's late season break as they were denied the full use of their top players in the preliminary round."
          • Sounds good to me.
    • Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
      • You're welcome! Parutakupiu (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• The above comments have gotten a bit jumbled up, and I'm sure I've missed something. Is there anything I haven't yet addressed or need to address further? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The only thing you haven't addressed is the first section title shortening issue. "Inception as an Olympic sport" is too long. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I like "Olympic inception", it may be confusing to some users as to what that actually means. Is there a guideline about header length? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
      • The only this that it shouldn't go over ten words, which is not the case here. Still, I wonder if you could rephrase that title without losing its sense. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Why not simply "Inception"? Resolute 02:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I guess that would work. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support—I decided to give my approval regardless of what is decided about the first section naming issue. It's really a minor thing that does not obscure the high level that this article already presents. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) It looks good, and I've been doing spot copy-editing. I have a few issues, though:

• I saw both spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes in there—I changed one pair of spaced en dashes to em dashes; make sure there aren't any other inconsistencies. Please keep it consistent.
  • Striking, as I can't find any more inconsistencies. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• In your research, did you find information about Slovakia's reaction to being relegated to the bottom division while the Czech Republic was retained at the top? I would imagine they would be incensed about getting such a raw deal.
  • I can't remember, but I probably would be able to find something about it. However, the divisions have more effect on the World Championships than they do the Olympics, and more detail would venture off-topic (which I normally wouldn't mind, but this is a very long article).
    • Not a big deal at all, considering the overall thoroughness of the article, but a couple sentences wouldn't hurt if you could find something. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• "The tournament format drew criticism for not allowing all teams the full use of their NHL players during the entire event." I don't understand what you mean by "full use".
  • The 8 teams that participated in the first round did so without NHL players. The NHL players (and the top 6 teams) started playing in the second round.
• "The NHL went on break for the duration" "went on hiatus" is slightly more idiomatic, but I'll leave it up to you.
  • Fixed.
• "The number of teams was lowered to 12; the top six teams did not get a bye and played five preliminary round games." Maybe I missed it, but was there ever a time when the top six teams did get a bye?
  • Yes, in 1998 and 2002.
• "The Japanese women's national team had failed to make that year's World Championships." I fail to see how this is relevant.
  • It's establishing why the Nagano committee was against adding women's hockey. They thought there was no point in adding it, since their team wasn't great and there was little public interest.
    • Can you somehow explain this in the article? This factoid stands out like a sore thumb in an otherwise well-organized article.
      • Done, I added more info and a quote as well. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• "measuring 61x26 metres (200x85 feet), instead of the international size of 61x30 metres (200x98.5 feet)" Spaces before and after the "x"s per MOSNUM. There are a couple more examples in the article.
  • Fixed.
    • Another picky thing, and I'll quote MOSNUM on it: When dimensions are given, values each number should be followed by a unit (e.g., write 1 m × 3 m × 6 m, not 1 × 3 × 6 m3 or 1 × 3 × 6 m). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I have fixed every measurement to go along with the MOS. Is there anything else? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Check your logical quotation: sentence fragments do not have the quotation marks outside the punctuation. I fixed this example: "work day and night to have [NHL players] in Sochi."-->"work day and night to have [NHL players] in Sochi."
  • Striking, fixed a couple other instances but can't find any more. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• "According to NHLPA executive director Paul Kelly, the players want to return to the Olympics and will fight to include the ability in the next agreement." "fight" carries the wrong message I think, especially considering the nature of hockey games ;)
  • Fixed.
• (in the table) "The First Winter Olympics athlete to test positive for a banned substance" Is "First" supposed to be capitalized?
  • No, it originally didn't have the "The" in it, and when I added it, I forgot to de-capitalize the "First".
• In the "participating nations" table, you need to use something besides or in addition to color to denote that "the nation did not exist with that designation at that time". Dabomb87 (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Those cells are the only ones that are blank, so I think that works as an indicator. Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support As a follower of hockey, and having extensive knowledge of the subject at hand, I am quite impressed with the article. Very detailed, heavily sourced, plenty of images, it all adds up to a great article. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support with comments. Geez, this is good. Looks carefully prepared—I didn't find much. The level of detail seems appropriate. Nice work!
  • If you're looking to trim some fat from the lead (and you should), I'd start with the mentions of the non-dominant "other medal winners". Also, don't use "include" if you're going to list them all—just use "are".
    • West Germany isn't listed in the lead, which is why "include" is used.
  • It stood out that you used "was initially reluctant to" twice in the lead. Can you mix it up a bit?
    • Switched the second use to "was hesitant to".
  • Don't specify acronyms you don't use again (LHG)
    • Removed.
  • "In 1995, an agreement was reached that allowed NHL players to participate in the tournament" Can we switch this from passive to active and say who agreed? Was this an agreement just among IOC members, or between the IOC and various leagues?
    • I clarified that bit.

--Laser brain (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Image concerns as follow:

• File:Ice hockey pictogram.svg: is this a representation of the official logo? If yes, is the logo copyrighted? If not, why should an unofficial logo be the representation of this event? Transcluding a design does not bestow new copyrights (no originality introduced); in other words, the SVG should follow the license of the original designer only.
  • It is one of many sport pictograms that was created specifically for wikipedia. [78] These pictograms are generally used on all Olympic sport pages, and this just follows the standard.
• File:Ice hockey layout.svg: what is the inspiration for the base layout of the field (source of dimensions for the field, etc)?
  • I'm not sure, is it an important matter?
    • This is to verify that the diagram is an accurate representation of the source/object (per Wikipedia:Image use policy#Requirements). Jappalang (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't know, because I didn't create the image, but I'm assuming the user made it as accurate as possible. Is there anything I should do?
        • If the pictured field closely mirrors the contents of a book or reliable website, we can quote that as the source. Jappalang (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
          • The image itself cites this as a source. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Blessed me... I must have been blind... yeesh! Jappalang (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Other Images are verifiably in public domain or appropriately licensed. Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments: I think there is an image overload near the end. Why are there so many game shots there? I hope it is not just to pad the whitespaces at the right of the table. Judicious and appropriate use of images gives a better presentation than indiscriminate use of "free" images. If this is an article about Ice hockey at the Olympic Games, then the shots should be of the more significant matches, be they controversial or monumental in the history of the games, not of individual country's triumphs. Jappalang (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I wanted to include as many images of as many teams as I could to avoid any potential bias claims (there have been nationalist users who complain about the silliest things). There was also a concern about the number of images of Canadian teams in a peer review. I think the images do add to the page, and since they are free, I don't see why they can't be used? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image queuing, Wikipedia:Images#Image choice and placement, and Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 12#Gallery confusion again. As a whole, images are to be judiciously used. Commons would host masses of pertinent images, but the most representative of the subject are shown in the article. This becomes a matter of aesthetics and reading experience. Jappalang (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think the images affect the reading experience because they are along tables. However, I have removed them anyway. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Bringing File:Ice hockey pictogram.svg down here, as my concern seems to be no longer of a copyright/permission issue. What I am concerned about (after resolving possible copyrights) is: should we emboss an unofficial logo onto an international event, which carries its own event logos (albeit copyrighted and for each occasion)[79][80]? I know there seems not to be official policy or guideline against using "free" images , but I worry that some might mistake our editors' creations as official logos and in printing as such, propagate a misperception. In fact there is encouragement to use "free" images, but is there an oversight here for this kind of situation? What was the discussion (and rationales) that led to the creation of these logos and implementation? Jappalang (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't around for any discussion about the logos, so I don't know. I do somewhat agree with you about users mistaking it for any kind of official logo, but I don't know what else to use as a lead image. I had tried a different one a while back [81] but I removed it because I was afraid it might cause edit wars from users who try to add a different team to the lead. Do you have any suggestions for an alternate lead image? I guess the image of the 1920 team might work (it might be the most relevant), but again, I'm afraid that users might claim the article is biased towards Canada and showing a Canadian team in the lead wouldn't help matters. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope we can get answers from those who made the decision (and propagated this practice) if they are reading this, and perhaps other editors can weigh in as well. Are WikiProject Olympics and WikiProject Ice Hockey not aware of this possible issue? Jappalang (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As the creator of the Olympic sport pictograms, I have never endorsed nor opposed their use as a potential "official" visual identity to be used in Wikipedia articles about the corresponding Olympic sport. So far, they have been used only as decorative items of "sport per year" navigation boxes and tables with stats concerning the sports depicted by that pictogram. Nothing as big as being used as lead image in the history of an Olympic sport. So, I understand Jappalang's perspective, and I think that, since there does not seems to be any consensus on this matter, perhaps it should be best not to include the pictogram or, at least, not give it such a preponderance in the lead navbox template. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to make things simpler, I have switched to a new lead image of the 1920 gold medal winning team. It may bring on some complaints, but I think it makes the most sense of any of the current images. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing the image does address the comment, although I think a photo of a 1920 ice hockey match would be the best representation for the article. The 1920 team could suffice since the article is about the sport in the Olympics. Jappalang (talk) 06:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as far as I know, we don't have any free images of any games from the 1920 tournament, so the team is the second best option. Do you consider your concerns completely addressed? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Jappalang (talk) 22:29, 12 June 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 21:30, 16 June 2009 [82].

---

Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay

Nominator(s): Cool3 (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I present Hastings Ismay for your consideration. Already a MILHIST A-Class article, I've given the article several style passes since that time and let it age for a while to allow others to improve it as well. I have heard some complaints about the lead image in the article, but frankly it's the best I've been able to do after considerable searching. If, however, anyone comes up with a better one, I would be very happy to include it. Happy Reviewing! Cool3 (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Note the link checker tool shows one dead link but it's working as I checked it.) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comments - Just did a first review - generally looking good. I did notice some sentences and statements without citations - perhaps these are supported by a nearby citation, but for FA purposes would wonder if each statement/sentence would need to be locked down with a source? References list shows 78 of the 178 entries are "Ismay" - perhaps some secondary citations should accompany some of these cases to provide a better balance between primary/secondary sources. Seems consistent with WP:NATOSTYLE. Did some consistency checking to ensure UK English spellings, but could use a more detailed scan for that. Dl2000 (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

  Any sentence not cited is covered by the next citation; in my experience this is generally considered sufficient. Sure, many of the sources are Ismay's memoirs, but those provide more detail and depth than any other source available, so they were quite useful in filling the details. I think you'll find though, that other than in the early life (for which few secondary sources are avaialable), Ismay's memoirs are used primarily to express his own opinions (on which they are certainly authoritative) or to fill in details that other sources would omit. Some of these citations could be changed to Wingate, but I don't really see the point in doing so as Ismay's memoirs were one of Wingate's principal sources to begin with. Cool3 (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

  I have now gone through the article quite thoroughly, supplementing the citations to Ismay's memoirs with a citation to a secondary, so that the majority of them (other than quotes) are now sourced to a secondary source. It would be possible, if reviewers feel it is necessary, to remove the Ismay citations and replace them with the new citations, but I tend to think that two citations are better than one. Cool3 (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  Good stuff... to be clear, I don't suggest removing any Ismay refs; just a good balance of secondary sources to be safe, especially getting into the FA leagues. Concur that the more citations, the merrier, within reason. Dl2000 (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments, near support, from Ceranthor (talk · contribs)
  • primarily remembered for his role - switch primarily and remembered

    Changed.

  • The Memoirs of General Lord Ismay - is this a collection or just one memoir, if the latter, refer to it as a memoir in the article

    So far as I know, when used to mean "autobiography", the memoir is generally used in the plural (memoirs). As Ismay himself entitled them "memoirs" it seemed most appropriate to carry forward this usage. "Usually, memoirs. a. an account of one's personal life and experiences; autobiography." [83]

  • After completing the course at Sandhurst, Ismay placed fourth on its examinations and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Indian Army. - fourth overall, I assume? Or fourth level, perhaps?

    Fourth overall, article changed to reflect this more clearly. Cool3 (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, I think this is easily an FA article. ceranthor 15:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - seems quite solid and a worthy FA candidate. Dl2000 (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. I did some minor copyediting, as some of the prose seemed a bit repetitive, but I think overall this is an excellent article. Karanacs (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on image concerns:

• File:FORT TALEH.jpg: there is no verifiable information for what the copyright of this image was claimed to be.

  Removed pending the conclusion of the IfD proccess.Cool3 (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• File:Gandhi with Lord and Lady Mountbatten.jpg: no proof of this image's first publishing in India; hence failing the PD-India claim. Conversely, there is evidence that suggests this to be under UK copyrights and hence still under copyright protection.

  Removed pending the conclusion of the IfD proccess, and replaced with a verifiably PD image of Mountbatten and Jinnah.Cool3 (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• File:Mountbatten Jinnah.jpg: unfotunately this runs into another problem. This image lapses into UK public domain only from 1998 (1947 + 50 + 1). There is an international treaty, the URAA, which restores/extends copyrights for foreign works that are not in their source country's public domain by 1 January 1996. As this image is still copyrighted in UK in 1996, and is under Crown Copyrights, the photo is copyrighted in US until at least 2019 or later. Jappalang (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  Wow, that's complicated. You evidently know quite a bit more about copyright issues than I do, but I'm not quite sure this is true. Per the HMSO reply, it appears that HMSO may (as you state) still have copyright protection in the United States for its work published between 1946 and 1957, but it appears that they have relinquished that right. According to the email, "material published in 1954, and any Crown copyright material published before that date, would now be out of copyright, and may be freely reproduced throughout the world." This would seem to apply to the image in question. Cool3 (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  The HMSO reply was only the first of the thread, and further posts raise certain issues (for one, if the letter is accepted as is, proof of publishing before 1954 has to be supplied for this image). I have brought up a discussion at commons:Commons talk:Licensing#Foreign government works and URAA as Carl Lindberg has raised an intriguing opinion of government works and URAA. Jappalang (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

  The general consensus at commons:Commons talk:Licensing#Foreign government works and URAA seems to be that this photograph is in the public domain. Cool3 (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

  Yep, sure is. It is okay to upload expired British Crown Copyrighted material. Jappalang (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• File:Maurice Hankey.jpg: I would like to hear what exactly qualifies this image to be in public domain; LoC's page states it is created or published in 1921. The current license is based on publishing before 1923.

  Isn't 1921 before 1923? Cool3 (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  The issue is where does it state the image was published before 1923; LoC's parameter is created or published, not just published. The PD-1923 is for year of publishing, not year of creation. If this photo was created on 1921 but unpublished before 1923 (and such things do happen), then the PD-1923 tag is false. Jappalang (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  I see what you mean. If necessary, the image can be removed. Cool3 (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  After some searching, it appears that all images of the National Photo Company are considered to be in the public domain. I have added the appropriate tag to the file on Commons. Cool3 (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  I do not have such faith in the reasoning of the template, but it seems concensus on Commons favors the template. Jappalang (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Other Images are verifiably in public domain or licensed. Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support and comments just two minor point War Book has half a set of quotation marks, two or none please. where he joined in the British fight against the "Mad Mullah", Mohammed Abdullah Hassan. would something like where he joined in the fight against Mohammed Abdullah Hassan, called the "Mad Mullah" by the British be less pov? I don't imagine his followers called him the Mad Mullah. Not a big deal if you are happy with current phrasing. jimfbleak (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • War Book is actually part of a larger quotation: "was responsible for seeing that all plans and preparations made by Government Departments or sub-committees of the CID to meet the eventuality of war, were incorporated under appropriate headings in a document known as the War Book." Thus, it's not actually in quotes of its own at all.
  • THe part on the Mad Mullah has been rephrased. Thanks for the comments! Cool3 (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support and comments: Generally excellent.

• "...to take control of the forces in Somaliland and finish off Hassan once and for all". The expression "...finish off Hassan once and for all" is not a quote, and is surely unencyclopedic. It makes him sound like a wounded dog. I suggest "...fight a conclusive battle against Hassan's forces".

  Good point. I've changed the wording. Cool3 (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything else looked OK to me; I did a couple of minor copyedits. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Attention is needed throughout to logical punctuation, WP:PUNC. One section uses the phrase "because of his" three times within a few sentences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Two of the three have been changed. Cool3 (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • All quotes have been adjusted to comply with this policy on punctuation. Cool3 (talk) 20:39, 16 June 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 21:30, 16 June 2009 [84].

---

Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism

Nominator(s): NancyHeise ^talk 15:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets FA criteria and all concerns raised in the last FAC have been addressed with the help of other editors and myself. NancyHeise ^talk 15:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Struck, Steve ^{T • C} I'm sorry, I took a look at the article out of curiosity, not intending to review it (in the middle of a review of another huge article), but I got so bogged down with prose problems in the lead that I felt I had to comment (please see the link for why it's an "oppose" and not a "comment", despite my not doing a full review). Major issues manifest from the first sentence:
  • "The Ten Commandments are a series of religious and moral imperatives, recognized as a moral foundation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and among the cornerstones of theology of the Roman Catholic Church." – this just doesn't work; the first half, up to "Islam", is fine, but the second half is I assume missing an "are" before "among"? Imagine the sentence with the RCC moved up to see why: "The Ten Commandments are a series of religious and moral imperatives, and among the cornerstones of theology of the Roman Catholic Church." See what I mean?
  • "The New Testament contains Jesus's teaching that observing the commandments is a minimum requirement for mankind, he exceeded them in his teachings requiring more, not less moral effort." – again, the segment before the first comma is OK, but then it runs on to a completely separate sentence that doesn't make sense either alone or as the second half of the original statement. Split the sentence after "mankind" and somehow make sense of "He exceeded them in his teachings requiring more, not less moral effort." A comma after teachings might help, but I don't even know what this is trying to say.
  • He also summarized them into two "great commandments that taught love of God (the first three Commandments) and love of neighbor (the last seven)." – a quote ("great) that isn't closed? Inconsistent capitalisation of "Commandments" in both this sentence and the rest of the lead.
  • "Church beliefs are detailed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which devotes a separate section to explain each of the commandments." – without a comma before "which", it reads as if there are multiple Catechism's, of which there is one (which devotes a separate section to explain each of the commandments) that details church beliefs. A simple fix, but one that alters the whole meaning of the sentence.
  • According to the Catechism" – inconsistent italicisation; the capitalisation tells us it's the proper noun shorthand for the aforementioned Catechism of the Catholic Church rather than merely "the catechism", so it needs italics too.
• These are all issues that should really have been caught before FAC submission. I don't know if they're representative of the rest of the article, but being in the lead section they're major enough to warrant an oppose vote. I'm sorry if my tone seems harsh, but the lead is supposed to grab the reader's interest; it won't if the reader trips up on easily-spotted mistakes like these. I'll keep this page watchlisted for any response, and promise to look back in when I've finished my other review. All the best, and good luck with the rest of the nomination, Steve ^{T • C} 21:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Steve, I did not find your tone to be harsh and your comments are spot on. I agree that changes can be made to the lead to improve the prose. Efforts by different editors to fix the lead have created a mishmash of styles that does not work and I am happy to address your issues here. I do not feel that the rest of the article is in need of this kind of work so I hope you are not discouraged from further review after I finish the lead. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 23:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have made changes to the lead that address your concerns here. Please have another look. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 23:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That new lead is a lot better. Oppose struck. Also, you're right, it didn't look particularly representative of the rest of the article. I'm not confident enough on religious subjects, so I'll probably not review this fully, but if I get time, once this review has developed further I'll pop back in to see if I can at least give the general prose a closer look. Nice work, Steve ^{T • C} 13:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I welcome any further review you can offer. NancyHeise ^talk 18:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Note the link checker is showing one link as dead, but it actually works, I clicked through to it fine.) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Not FA. Poorly referenced. Publications by historians should be used, instead of "catholic sources". The ref problem results in a pov problem, since the article is not presented with a rigorous critical historical perspective.--Sum (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi. It might help if you can expand on that comment. Can you give a specific example of a statement cited to catholic sources that might be significantly different if cited to an independent historian? Otherwise, it will be difficult for the nominator to pin down exactly what the problem is, what to change, and for other reviewers to determine whether to take this point into consideration. Steve ^{T • C} 19:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • This is not a history article but a theology article, so historians are not qualified to discuss the matter. Not all writers on Catholic theology are Catholic, nor are all Catholics of the same mind, so your second point has no grounds. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just added some Protestant historians and views to Background to supplement the Protestant and Catholic and secular historians that are already in the article. The article now includes 12 non-Catholic sources and 13 Catholic sources not including the Bible and the Catechism. NancyHeise ^talk 00:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Well written and thoroughly referenced. I don't have a problem with having many references that are "Catholic sources" because this is an article about Catholic teachings. Dincher (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your support. I just want to post some clarifying comments about sources used to help people who do not know some important details regarding them:

• all sentences that state a fact of official Catholic teaching in this article are referenced to sources that contain Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur declarations from the Church. I have also cross referenced these sources to the actual primary sources (like the Catechism of the Catholic Church) that they cite. All are written by professors of theology at prestigious universities in accordance with recommendations of WP:reliable source examples. One of the sources used in the article is approved by the USCCB for use in catechesis.
• all sentences that discuss a historical or background aspect of the article do not specifically come from Catholic sources. These sources include both Catholic and non-Catholic authors that meet the requirements of WP:reliable source examples as well but because they do not deal with official Catholic doctrine, they do not posess nor have they applied for Nihil obstat or imprimatur because it would be inappropriate to the subject matter these books discuss.

• I am not sure how to improve upon the sources as they are the best English language sources available. However, if someone has another source they would like to include, I am open to having a look and including it as an additional source. NancyHeise ^talk 02:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comments A few quibbles
  • He exceeded them in his word -is this right? reads oddly to me, expect either "words" or "work"
  • I fixed the schism dab, didn't check for other dabs, but several redirects
  • "Life unworthy of life" If this is a book title, as claimed, it should be italics, but the actual book is Die Freigabe der Vernichtung Lebensunwerten Lebens, (Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life).
  • Evangelium Vitae, Rerum Novarum etc. - italics I think
  • War and self defense - self-defence is usually hyphenated in BE, can you assure me that AE is different?

I'm leaning to support, but just needs a little checking jimfbleak (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • A more literal translation would be "The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life" which is the title used by the New York Times here. Another translation would be "The Permissibility for Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life". --Richard (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks JimFbleak and Richard, I'll get right on these comments and get back to you. NancyHeise ^talk 01:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am copying Jimfbleak's comments here to answer them one by one without breaking up his original comments above.

• • He exceeded them in his word -is this right? reads oddly to me, expect either "words" or "work"

I changed the sentence to read "The New Testament contains Jesus's moral teachings which confirmed the validity of the commandments. He exceeded them in his teachings and demanded more, not less moral effort.[8]" NancyHeise ^talk 02:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I fixed the schism dab, didn't check for other dabs, but several redirects

Checked links and made some changes where needed. NancyHeise ^talk 02:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "Life unworthy of life" If this is a book title, as claimed, it should be italics, but the actual book is Die Freigabe der Vernichtung Lebensunwerten Lebens, (Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life).

Yes, Richard was kind enough to put the whole name into the article, thanks Richard. NancyHeise ^talk 02:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Evangelium Vitae, Rerum Novarum etc. - italics I think

Yes! changed all papal encyclicals mentioned to italics NancyHeise ^talk 02:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• • ''War and self defense - self-defence is usually hyphenated in BE, can you assure me that AE is different?

self-defense is correct AE. I have corrected the article text by inserting a hyphen per your comment here. NancyHeise ^talk 02:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support although I'm not an expert, I'm happy with the sources and the changes made above. It's slightly disturbing that the article is in AE, when everyone knows God is an Englishman, but that's probably not actionable (: jimfbleak (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it's time for some silliness, eh? Well then, try this on for size...

For he himself has said it,

And it's greatly to his credit,

That he is an Englishman!

That he is an Englishman!

For he might have been a Roosian,

A French, or Turk, or Proosian,

Or perhaps Itali-an!

Or perhaps Itali-an!

But in spite of all temptations

To belong to other nations,

He remains an Englishman!

From HMS Pinafore --Richard (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It must be nice to be a pure breed - we mutts in the US don't know that kind of pride. We are just proud when our local football team wins the Superbowl. NancyHeise ^talk 17:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support: I have commented at length during previous FACs and peer reviews, and my view holds: this article is a thoughtful and comprehensive account of the Catholic Church's teaching relative to the Ten Commandments, well worthy of promotion, and I look forward to seeing it featured. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review: images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Notes: the first line in the section "Jesus' expansion" contains an external jump to a scripture (external links belong in citations or external links). The final quote in the section "Separation, civil divorce, annulments" appears to be split, resulting in confusing punctuation and what looks like (but isn't) the need for an ellipses ... is it possible to put all of the quote in the quote, not in the preceding line? There are still WP:PUNC logical punctuation issues that need addressing (example ... because the adulterer sins against "his spouse, his society, and his children as well as his own body and soul.") There are still hyphen, endash mixups (example: ... total self–giving and union, ... should be a hyphen, not an endash). This clause is still unexplained and uncited: ... unchastity or an unlawful marriage (depending upon the Biblical translation), ... a citation to go through every possible translation of the Bible doesn't clarify the translation issue. There is an inconsistent citation style wrt Bible sources: some have a colon, some don't, examples ... Deuteronomy 4 13, others are Matthew 5:20. These are samples; a good Mos review is needed of these issues throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy, I've made corrections per your comments here and checking the article again searching for any punctuation or endash mixups. Steve says he is going to go through the article again over the weekend [85] so maybe between the two of us all issues relating to MOS will be resolved. NancyHeise ^talk 17:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Yeah, I've been performing a light copyedit at a leisurely pace over the last few days. I think I've done up to "Third Commandment" so far; the others will probably take another couple of days. I was planning to leave the full MOS-sweep until the end, so I can fix any outstanding issues in one go. But while I'm here, I have got one question: is there any particular reason the quote boxes are in boldface and a seemingly-larger font? I can't see anything specific in the guidelines that prohibits different formatting in the boxes than in the article body, but it is a little... distracting... which might be the intention? :) Steve ^{T • C} 19:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I pondered on same, and went back and forth for a while. WP:MOSBOLD allows for bolding of lists, and in a sense, they are a list. So I'm not fussed either way. They do look a bit ... awkward ... but not enough for me to argue against the bolding. Consensus ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't fuss me too much either; as both a list and, in effect, an extension of the section header, I'm OK with its remaining. Steve ^{T • C} 11:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm generally supportive of this article being classed as a Featured Article. During the first candidacy, User:Ioannes Pragensis commented that the article "offers almost no information about hundreds years of Catholic moral theology, the development of its views and related church doctrines etc. There is only one short reference to Thomas Aquinas in the article, and that is all - no other early Catholic moral theologians are included, no explanation of "sola fide" conflict with Reformators in 16th century is offered etc. I think that the article in its current state is a well designed presentation of what one would hear about Ten Commandments in the church sermons and documents today, but it has a rather shallow theoretical basis (for example it offers almost no information about the textual critic of Ten C. in context of Vulgata translation) and it ignores the historical development of the understanding and use of Ten C. in the church. Therefore its perspective is more the perspective of an insider from 2009, not neutral perspective of history, sociology and philosophy of religion, which considers development of ideologies in time, includes also critical voices and tries to see things from impartial perspective." In response to Ioannes' comments, we have made an effort to address some of his concerns relative to the historical development of church teaching around specific commandments. However, it was not until a few weeks ago, that I came to understand that there is an issue regarding the assertion by the Catechism that the Ten Commandments have "occupied a predominant place" in teaching the faith since the time of Saint Augustine (A.D 354–430)". It took me a while to research this issue and write it up (partly due to other things going on in "the real world"). Please see my comment on the article's Talk Page. My recommendation would be hold up a decision on this article until this issue is resolved. I think this can be done fairly quickly but I also think it is important to address it before qualifying the article as FA since this seems to me to be a fair-sized hole in the article's coverage of the topic. --Richard (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I have inserted more info per your comments here and on the talk page. Please see my additional information in Background. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 19:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What you added to the "Background" section addresses the issue that I raised. Although the prose could be improved, I am happy with the points that are made there. I will leave it to others to tighten up the prose. --Richard (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made some improvements in prose and logical flow of ideas, please see again. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 01:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Support - I was waiting to see if Savidan raised any substantive issues regarding historical development. Since he is satisfied, I am now ready to support the FA status of this article. Kudos to NancyHeise for much hard work and a job well-done. --Richard (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Wow! I just saw your support way up here Richard. Thanks so much for your support and for your terrific help in moving the article along toward improvement - especially for your help in meeting WP:NPOV. NancyHeise ^talk 01:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - this article is a good summary of the Commandments as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but I would like to see more on the history of the 10 commandments within the Catholic Church before the era of John Paul II. What role did the 10 commandments play in Catholic theology in the Middle Ages? Or even the 19th/early 20th century? How has emphasis changed over time? What papal encyclicals or ecumenical councils have spoken to the issue? These are the types of questions a featured article would address. The "Background" section does not seem to address this issue at all. There is only sentence about the early church, and then >90% of the article is about modern issues. I am also concerned that much of the material in the intro and the first section is too generic given the title of this article; I would prefer that it maintain a laserlike focus on Roman Catholicism itself and not repeat too much content that is common to all Christian denominations. Savidan 15:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have inserted more information on history while addressing Richard's comments. However, the article already includes all mentions of papal encyclicals regarding the Ten. There are no missing issues. We went through each commandment and included a history of Church teaching within each commandment where one existed. This information is not in Background because that section is a general overview of all the commandments. Please see the histories discussed within each commandment. If you know of any papal encyclicals that I have omitted from the article please specify because I do not believe I have omitted any.

• Also, What information do you think should be deleted form Background and the lead that is too generic? I am not sure what to delete without seriously depriving Reader of important basic facts that provide him/her with a general understanding of the issue. Can you be more specific? Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 19:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I have eliminated some of the details pertaining to the giving of the Ten Commandments and replaced these with Church teaching regarding their issuance. Please let me know if I have addressed your concern. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 00:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, you have indeed cited many papal encyclicals as they related to specific commandments. My concern is more towards the history of the commandments as a whole. There are two important issues that I view as neglected: (1) the history of the theology of the Ten as a group rather than as individual moral issues. For example, the Catholics differ in their numbering of the Commands; to wit, no other substantial Judeo-Christian denomination shares this numbering—this, I believe, has a history; (2) the history of the joint importance of the Ten, as theologically more or less important than other teachings. I agree that this issue is separate from the equally important "Background" section, so I would perhaps like to see a new "History" section. If JPII is truly the first pope to write about the fundamental importance of the Ten Commandments as a group of teachings, that would seem to be a very important point; if he is not, then the article has made an important omission.

Additionally, I believe that the article is too quick to claim that the present interpretation is substantially similar to historical church teaching. I will give the example of capital punishment because it is the area that I am most familiar. I can give more examples when I am less pressed for time. I believe the article is incorrect when it states that the Church did not explicitly support capital punishment at some points in its history. Please see the Dulles and Megivern sources I have cited in Capital punishment in Vatican City. I think the article would also be remiss to omit the fact that the Church was itself not just a supporter, but an active administrator, of the death penalty historically (see List of people executed by the Holy See). Savidan 10:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Savidan, to address your comments here I have added the following to the article:

• A seealso link in Capital punishment section to List of people executed by the Holy See
• Expanded Capital punishment, (see [86]) to include mention of points made by the Dulles source you suggest above with wikilinked mention of Inquisition as well.
• The sentence that says official Church teaching has neither absolutely condemned nor promoted the death penalty was changed to include the name of the person stating this.
• Numbering of the Commandments history is already mentioned here [87]. There is no more history to report on this. Scholarly sources do not say anything more about numbering. Wondering if I had missed something, I performed a search and read about this topic in various other sources both Protestant and Catholic and secular but there is nothing more to report other than what is already here. I could include the fact that some Protestants think their numbering is more correct but that is also true of Catholics and Jews all of whom have different numberings. Lutherans have the same numbering system as Catholics and this too is included in the article. What more would you like to see here? What do you think has been omitted? Please be more specific, Thanks.
• History - I have changed the name of the Background section to "History" as it now relates the history of the Ten that includes a history of its emphasis in teaching the faith as you requested. See [88]. This history section also provides mention of divisive issues between Protestants and Catholics regarding the Ten and developement of official Church teaching on them. I hope this addresses all your concerns. Thanks for taking the time to review the article, NancyHeise ^talk 19:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral, but a tentative one: interested to see whether Savidan is satisfied. as yet (neutrality, writing).

• Savidan, above, is one of our best religious/historical scholars. I'd like to second his line of questions. In addition, the shades of belief within the church are not given nearly enough oxygen; WP's job is not to repeat the iron-fisted control over ideology of whichever regime is in power in the Vatican in what needs to be a scupulously NPOV account.
• "demanding a righteousness that exceeded that of the scribes"—consider avoiding that that ... "demanding a righteousness exceeding that of the scribes" (the ing ing is less instrusive, possibly).
• uncertain, not "not certain".
• Jesus's, then Jesus'.
• "a place of predominant importance"—ouch ... "a predominant place".
• This is certainly better than the previous "Roman CC" FAC I saw a few years ago in its use of techniques to distance WP explicitly from statements of ideology and dogma. That's good NPOV technique. Tony (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the work that has gone into this; it has the makings of a good FAC, but I'm uneasy as yet. Tony (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Tony, I have made the prose changes you suggest here and I have inserted info on the number of practicing Catholics in the lead. Please see my additions to the article in response to Savidan and Richard's comments and let me know what other kinds of reservations you have about the article, specifics will help me to be able to address them.NancyHeise ^talk 19:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I just want to add that we were careful to add criticisms of Church teaching where these existed. I think that maybe you may not have seen these within each commandment section. Not all of the commandments have these because not all are controversial, in fact very few are. I'll list the specific areas that needed criticism discussions to help you review it:

• Lead- I added a sentence that says the number of practicing Catholics is not reliably known cited to the BBC per your comments here.
• Numbering- Differences between Catholic and Protestant numbering is identified along with info where these different systems originated.
• Background- Differences in understanding the place of the Commandments as a source of grace between Protestant and Catholics.
• Graven Images- discusses criticism of Catholics for idolatry and history of Church belief on this subject.
• Third commandment - contains discussion on differences between Jewish and Catholic and some other Christian denominations and Catholics on Sabbath Day issue (Sunday or Saturday).
• Fifth commandment - contains discussion on the difference between santity of life ethic and quality of life ethic as framed by most medical journals and scholars discussing this commandment. This encompasses all discussion on abortion, stem cell research and euthanasia which break down to differences between these two ethics.
• Sixth commandment section on homosexuality contains the two opposing philosophies within the Church on the issue. Also, this commandment contains information on the fact that many Church members and non-members criticize the Church teachings on birth control as contributing to overpopulation. Also included: info on criticism surrounding condom policy with regards to AIDS.
• Do these address your concerns and if not, can you specify any criticisms you think I have omitted? NancyHeise ^talk 02:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Support A thorough and well-written article. I do have a comment, but it's purely aesthetic in nature: I noticed that all of the quotation boxes and images are on the right. I think it looks nicer when the images are sometimes on the left and sometimes on the right; but that's a personal preference and just a suggestion. Ricardiana (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support - I was able to move one picture to the left (in Graven Images) but I am unable to do so with any of the others without violating some Wikipedia policies. We can't put pictures directly underneath subject headings and pictures can't run into the section below. I thought the Bathsheba picture could be moved but it results in a little bit of what is called "sandwiching" of text. Thanks for your support and for not being a stickler on placement of images! NancyHeise ^talk 03:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem - it was just a thought. Ricardiana (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• On the copyediting front, I've come across this statement in the "Sixth commandment" section:

  The sexual act is sacred within the context of the marital relationship that reflects a "complete" and "life-long" "mutual" "gift" "of a man and a woman".

  The series of brief quotations, sans interruption, don't read that well, but I'm struggling to paraphrase it because I'm not 100% sure what the sentence is saying. Does marriage represent the life-long mutual gift, or is it "the sexual act"? Can you elaborate here? Or if you still have access to Kreeft, it might be useful to post the relevant text, maybe on my talk to avoid clogging this page (as bad luck would have it, page 245 is unavailable in Google Books' preview). A side note: would you object to my altering "The sexual act" in the above to "Sexual intercourse"? It's more specific and avoids ambiguities of the "which sexual act?" variety. Steve ^{T • C} 12:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hee! I don't know about you but for me, only one of the sexual acts is considered "the" sexual act! : ) NancyHeise ^talk 16:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, "sexual intercourse" is a more common locution and thus scans better. If we're not working with a direct quote from the cited work, I would just remove all the quotations and not worry about paraphrasing. As long as the sentence has a citation, this is not really a copyright issue, the "fair use" doctrine should cover use of such a short snippet. --Richard (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Steve, I posted Kreeft's quote from page 245 on this FACs discussion page here [89]. I changed the sentence per comments here, it now states "Sexual intercourse is sacred within the context of the marital relationship that reflects "the five essential ingredients of a marriage"—a "complete" and "life-long" "mutual" "gift" "of a man and a woman". This I think addresses the "sexual act" comment and clarifies what the series of quotes are describing. Feel free to improve upon this if you like and thanks for your terrific copyedit. NancyHeise ^talk 16:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that text; it explains a lot (i.e. that the machine-gun quotes were Kreeft's not-so-great idea). Hope my tweak to the section is appropriate. The MOS concerns seem mostly cleared up (I'll check for any I've missed later), save for the logical quotation issues, for which I need to go pick over the guideline first. Steve ^{T • C} 22:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking that it is not necessary to perpetuate "Kreeft's not-so-great idea" of using machine-gun quotes. For one thing, the point is that there are "five essential ingredients of a marriage". Perhaps it would be useful to present these five as a separate topic early in the section on the sixth commandment preceding the other discussions that reference them. Perhaps we could put the five elements in a bullet-pointed list with brief explanations in a sentence of two. For example, I think it's pretty obvious what "life-long" and "of a man and a woman" mean but it's not so obvious what "complete", "mutual" and "gift" mean. Obviously, people will have some idea but some elaboration could be useful here if we can do it . "Mutual" means that both sides want to be in the marriage but what if one party wants out? There is no divorce so this seems to be a contradiction. Do any of the sources amplify the meaning of "mutual"? "Gift" presumably means that the marriage was freely entered into and no coercion or inducement was involved. The marriage was not arranged, coerced or part of a contract involving a quid pro quo. That's what I read into the word. Do any of our sources provide an amplification of the word "gift"? Now, I have to say that I don't have a clear understanding of what "complete" means. I'm guessing that it means you cannot have a marriage which intentionally excludes characteristics and activities normally associated with a "complete" marriage. This would therefore exclude "marriages of convenience" or prohibit a spouse from refusing to have sex even though he/she is not unfaithful in the sense of having sexual intercourse outside the marriage. Now, I am personally uncomfortable with the last proposition about "withholding sex" but that should illustrate the need for providing sourced elaborations of what the "five essential ingredients" mean. --Richard (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Great idea Richard, I'm adding this info now from a different nihil obstat, imprimatur source that was created by 12 Catholic theologians, its called "Catholic for a Reason". NancyHeise ^talk 16:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard, after researching this, I believe it is inappropriate. The five ingredients of a marriage are not discussed as part of the Ten Commandments and are not even identified as the "five ingredients", this is Kreeft's analysis. He is correct, there are five ingredients but they are not listed and interpreted by either the Catechism or scholarly sources. The Catechism states them as part of the explanation of the sixth commandment but omits "free" which is explained under "mutual consent" in its explanation of the sacrament of matrimony. To address the awkwardness of the sentence punctuation, I have instead reworded the sentence to quote the Catechism instead of Kreeft and added ref. NancyHeise ^talk 17:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Steve, per your post immediately above this one, I went through and checked all quotations to their sources and made some punctuation corrections to adhere to WP:LQ. NancyHeise ^talk 03:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Steve and Richard, I was thinking this morning about how we changed "sexual act", (the words used by the Catechism) to "sexual intercourse". I am not sure that is the best thing to do. The "sexual act" could mean more than just "sexual intercourse", it could mean the act of lovemaking which is all inclusive. I am uncomfortable with the change and would like to revert back to "sexual act". Are you both OK with that? NancyHeise ^talk 15:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with changing it back but, if we cannot easily define amongst ourselves the precise meanings of these phrases, it suggests an ambiguity that we should clear up for the reader. If the Catechism doesn't provide a clear definition, do either Kreeft or Schreck shed any light on how to interpret this phrase? This is especially important if we are proposing a wider definition of "sexual act" than most readers would interpret it to mean. There are many Christians who would consider "lovemaking short of sexual intercourse" to be permissible activity outside of marriage. Hmmm... well, um, I guess we'd have to differentiate between premarital lovemaking as opposed extramarital lovemaking. (cf. "I did not have sex with that woman" - Bill Clinton) NB: If we can't provide a clear definition of "the sexual act", we should make it clear that the phrase "sexual act" is used by the Catechism and may therefore have a specific definition other than what readers may expect. --Richard (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard, Kreeft and Schreck do not specify, they repeat the words used by the Catechism which are "the acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify" Kreeft follows this with an analogy between these words used by the Catechism to describe sexual acts in marriage and words used by the Catechism to describe a sacrament. Because the words signify more than one act "the acts in marriage", I don't think we can use "sexual intercourse" or "the sexual act" but rather "sexual acts" I think is more correct paraphrasing. What do you think? NancyHeise ^talk 16:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard, to address your concern over the use of "sexual acts" I have added a note to clarify for Reader what the Catechism states. I hope this addresses your concern. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 18:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to come late to your original question; your solution is perfectly OK by me. Steve ^{T • C} 21:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - my issues resolved. Savidan 11:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and for taking the time to come review the article and offer your comments. NancyHeise ^talk 15:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Useful compilation that meets FA criteria. The concentration on present-day issues and positions is I think necessary given the length of the article already. Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support! NancyHeise ^talk 03:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Some minor c/e of recently added material aside, I think it's almost there. The only major issue I can see at the moment is that due to the recent additions to the article body, the lead no longer summarises its content. I've taken the liberty of throwing together a draft, here, but didn't want to make such a large change to the article itself without your say so. Because I'm out of my comfort zone subject-wise, it may be that my paraphrase has misinterpreted the article body or emphasised unimportant aspects, but I think some added focus on the history of Church teaching of the commandments is at least a good idea. Feel free to discard my suggestion for an expansion of your own; you know the subject far more intimately than I. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 21:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I like it and I inserted it into the article - great job! Thank you for your thorough help! I have reworded a couple of sentences and added the criticism of Protestant reformers since this is notable. Let me know what you think. Thanks again. NancyHeise ^talk 03:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The new lead is pretty good. I deleted the bit about the numbering because, IMO, it is not that important and thus does not need to be in the lead. More importantly, it is unrelated to what precedes it and what follows it and thus is a non sequitur. I also have a problem with this sentence: "While the number of Catholics who adhere to Church teaching is not reliably known, a review of the Commandments is one of the most common types of examination of conscience used by Catholics before receiving the sacrament of Penance." There is no direct connection between the number of Catholics who adhere to Church teaching and the fact that "a review of the Commandments is one of the most common types of examination of conscience used by Catholics before receiving the sacrament of Penance." Thus, this is another non sqequitur. I would delete this text: "While the number of Catholics who adhere to Church teaching is not reliably known" because it does not add anything to the meaning of the main clause and, if anything, becomes a distraction for those who might wonder what the logical connection is between the two. --Richard (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that suggestion. Thanks Richard for your help. I agree that the two sentences you point out don't help logical flow that much, the lead is better without them. NancyHeise ^talk 03:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I'm very pleased to support this article's candidacy; concerns have been tackled swiftly and with good grace throughout by the nominator, and the article has improved significantly since the first nomination, to a point that I'm satisfied that it meets the criteria. As I'm not a content expert in this area, I delayed supporting until I saw comments from those who are, but as far as I can see, the attribution on the quotes and opinions seems sound, appropriate distance has been maintained throughout, it's well-written, and seems a comprehensive overview of the subject's coverage in modern scholarly sources; a valid editorial choice I'm happy to endorse. Nice work! Steve ^{T • C} 09:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Steve, if this makes FA, it will be in large part because you held my hand through the process. I appreciate your help, everyone on Wikipedia I'm sure knows I needed it. : ) NancyHeise ^talk 15:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Although it's a great picture, the lead image is by Rembrandt, a (most likely) Protestant painter. I would vote for a switch to one of the other images from Commons. [90] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesgles (talk • contribs) 14:33, June 16, 2009

Although I am sure that Catholics love Protestants and would not mind the Rembrandt, I did go to your link and stumbled across another great picture of Moses receiving the Ten on a Jewish page called Mishpatim. I replaced Rembrandt with this da Costa: [91]. What do you think? Better? NancyHeise ^talk 15:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I like the chose of da Costa. It was a trivial matter, for sure, but with this we get an illustration not only of the ten commandments but also of the ten commandments through the eyes of a Roman Catholic, which is closer to the subject of this article. On all other points, I am satisfied, having made some suggestions and edits earlier on in the process. Lesgles (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Notes: Will someone please figure out the correct combo of punctuation and capitalization here:

• Envy is the desire for what belongs to another; "It is an attitude that fills us with sadness at the sight of another's prosperity."

Inconsistency in citations: some are Mt, others are Matthew. I'm not convinced the logical punctuation agrees with WP:PUNC, but I'm not an expert on logical punctuation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy, I changed the Envy sentence into two separate sentences to avoid punctuation difficulties, it now reads "2.Envy is the desire for what belongs to another.[144] The US Bishops define it as "an attitude that fills us with sadness at the sight of another's prosperity." I'm going to correct the Matthew citations and review the rest for consistency. NancyHeise ^talk 20:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed two citations from Mt to Matthew for consistency. I did not see any others that needed attention. Thanks Sandy. NancyHeise ^talk 20:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

On the logical punctuation issue, on paper the article conforms to the underwritten WP:LQ, though that guideline doesn't agree with what seems to be standard practise. In summary, then: dunno. :) Steve ^T • C 20:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Status quo :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 16 June 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 21:30, 16 June 2009 [92].

---

Moltke class battlecruiser

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This article passed GA in March and MILHIST A-class in April (reviews here and here, respectively). I feel the article is at or close to FAC, so here we are. Thanks in advance to all comments and suggestions. Parsecboy (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• SupportComments. The article is close to FA standards but needs some work:
  1. The ship was unsuccessfully offered for sale to the West German government in 1963; without a group willing to preserve the ship as a museum, the ship was sold for scrapping in 1971. The main text of the article does not mention these dates.
  2. Forty-four million marks were allocated for the 1908 fiscal year, which created the possibility of increasing the main guns to ... I do not like this clumsy sentence. I suggest "Forty-four million marks allocated for the 1908 fiscal year made it possible to increase the main guns to ..."
  3. there were many weight increases due to the increase in the size I do not like two "increase" in this sentence.
  4. Blohm & Voss received both contracts in 1909 ... However, further I read The contract for "Cruiser G" was awarded on 17 September 1908 ... What is the difference between receiving a contract and being awarded a contract? And also what does it mean The contract for "Cruiser H" was ordered on 8 April 1909 ? The terminology and dates here are confusing.
  5. While serving as the second command flagship, the ship carried an additional 3 officers and 25 men. Does it mean additional to the standard crew or to crew increased by an additional 13 officers and 62 men.?
  6. For consistency 52,000 shaft horsepower 76,795 shp and 71,275 shp should be converted into kilowatts as well. Please, also convert psi into atm/bar/Pa (one of three).
  7. Taking into account that Goeben existed until the middle of 1970s, do any newer photos of her exist? For instance, color photos would be of a particular interest.

Ruslik (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think I've got everything fixed, take a look at the new wording and let me know if it's better. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You sometimes use {{Auto shp}} and sometimes not. This leads to inconsistent results. Ruslik (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I switched them all over to {{convert}}; I didn't see any where the results were different numbers, just kW and MW. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I can support now (I also changed the last image to a one made in 1946). Ruslik (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Provisional support - Prose looks good from what I can tell, but as the article seems to rely primarily upon a single source, I hesitate to fully support; I'll watchlist this discussion and watch for more comments. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• I could easily switch some of the references to Staff's book in regards to the design information to Groner's book, would that be better? I had written the majority of that section before I had Groner's book, and never thought to diversify the references. I could also play around with the service history cites so it relies less on Staff's book. Thanks for the suggestion. Parsecboy (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Is it possible that the Groner book contains information the article is currently lacking? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• I looked through last night, and it does not appear that any information from Groner's is missing. Parsecboy (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Alright, that alleviates my concerns about the research. Thanks for the response. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Image review: images check out fine, verifiably in public domain. Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comments - first batch for first two sections
• Introduction
  • "...built between 1909–1911" would be better as "...built between 1909 and 1911". The same comment applies for the scrapping dates for Goeben later in the section.
  • "The ship remained on active service until 1960, and only slightly modified from her original configuration". I don't think the joining "and" is needed here.
  • I think the actions of the two ships in WWI should be brought together after the colon in the first sentence of the second paragraph and then their fate after the war dealt with later.
  • "The ship was unsuccessfully offered for sale to the West German government in 1963; without a group willing to preserve..." As the lack of a willing group to preserve Goeben is not directly related to the West Germany governments unwillingness to buy the ship, I feel the semi colon should be replaced with a full stop and a new sentence started.
    • I missed this comment earlier, it has been fixed as you suggest. Parsecboy (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Development
  • Suggest using number format for 44 million marks rather than text. Link mark to German gold mark. What about the allocation of this sum "created the possibility" of increasing the size of the guns? Presumably the bigger guns were more expensive.
  • Spelling of "caliber" in this section and "calibre" in the infobox is inconsistent.
  • You start a sentence with "However" - what is this contrasted against?
  • You write about increasing the calibre of the "guns" (plural) but say that the "28 cm gun was sufficient to engage even battleships." (singular). This seems a little awkward.
  • Explain how and why a 28 cm gun was sufficient to engage "even battleships" - range, weight of shell, accuracy, thickness of enemy armour, etc.
  • Explain why consideration of the numerical superiority of the Royal Navy's reconnaissance force, led Tirpitz to argue that the number of main guns on a ship should be increased instead of the calibre.
  • "due to the growth in the size of the citadel, armor thickness, the additions to the ammunition stores, and the rearrangement of the boiler system." The use of the definite article several time in this sentence (as my emphasis) suggests that the reader already has specific knowledge of these changes which they haven't. Removing the highlighted "the"s would remove this problem.
  • Italicising of "Cruiser G" and "Cruiser H" is inconsistent.
  • link Prussian to Prussia the first time it's used (with regard to Moltke) rather than the second.
  • "...she was launched...". Does the German navy use the feminine form for naval ships? Previously, Moltke and Goeben have been referred to as "the ships".
  • "SMS" used for the first time here when referring to the commissioning of Moltke but not in the first sentence when the ships' names are first given.
• --DavidCane (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review. I changed "forty-four" -> "44" along with the link to gold marks, calibre -> caliber, italics for "Cruiser G/H", the link to Prussia, the "the"s, etc. The sentence beginning with "However" is in contrast with the previous sentence; I'm assuming that you're implying that it's not correct grammar to do so?
  • I'd just say that, in my opinion, a semi colon would be better in front of "however". --DavidCane (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• As to your suggestion about explaining the reason for why the 28cm gun was sufficient to engage battleships, that may be a little difficult. Navweaps, a fairly comprehensive reference for naval weaponry, only states these guns are credited with penetrating the 5" and 6" side armor belts of the British Battle Cruisers, which isn't sufficient for what you'd like to see added, since the battleships of the period had armored belts that were at least twice that thickness. The range and weight of shell is in the armament section. It may be worth mentioning that the Nassau-class battleships were armed with 28cm guns though. I don't think anything more can be said as far as why Tirpitz wanted more rather than larger guns (without straying into OR), since the sources I've got don't go any further than what's already in the article. As far as I know, the German navy does use "she"; "Schiff" is neutral, but ships themselves are always "die" (as in, "die Moltke"), which is the feminine definite article. Parsecboy (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • On the issue of guns v battleships I was thinking that some explanation along the lines of what's at Dreadnought#Main_armament_power_and_caliber might be helpful. --DavidCane (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I think that, since none of the sources at my disposal say what you'd like to see added the article, any attempt to write an explanation based on what the sources do say and my interpretation of that data would be synthesis and probably OR, and thus out of the question. Until I can find a source for why exactly Tirpitz wanted more instead of larger guns, I'd rather not add anything more to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• More comments on next three sections
• Design - General characteristics
  • "fully loaded". Isn't the correct term "under full displacement"? Should link displaced to displacement (ship).
  • "They were considered to have handled well..." suggest change "They were considered to handle well..."
  • "...heavier seas..." suggest change to "...heavy seas..." as heavier is a comparative.
  • Is the loss of 60% of speed at full rudder unusual?
• Propulsion
  • As these were German ships, were the boilers actually rated in pounds per square inch? As pascals hadn't been defined, I would guess it would be something like kilograms per square metre or grams per square centimetre.
  • "After 1916, the boilers were supplemented with tar-oil." Presumably, although it doesn't say, the boilers were usually coal-fired and they were supplemented to operate with tar-oil, from 1916.
  • "4 propellers" should be "four propellers".
  • "ships' powerplant" should be "ships' powerplants"
  • "negligibly lower". suggest "only slightly lower"
  • "Fuel consumption on the 6-hour forced trial was 0.667 kg per hp/hr at 76,795 shp (57.266 MW), and .712 kg per hp/hr at 71,275 shp (53.150 MW) for both ships" This might be useful information, if we knew how much fuel the ships could carry, but it would be more understandable if it was represented as kg (or tonnes) of fuel used per hour at each of the two operating levels.
• Armament
  • "This was 7.5 degrees less than in the preceding Von der Tann, and[,] as a consequence, the range was slightly shorter, at 18,100 m (19,800 yd), than [the][to] 18,900 m (20,700 yd)[—the maximum range] of Von der Tann's guns" - suggest the edits indicated in square brackets.
  • If Dora and Emil were the rear turrets, then, presumably, the fore turret was Anton and the two side turrets were Bertha and Cäsar in accordance with the German_spelling_alphabet#Spelling_alphabet. It might be worth making this clear.
  • Were the ships able to fire a broadside of all 10 guns or was one of the side turrets blocked by the superstructure or other side turret from firing across the ship?
  • spell out semi-AP in full. The first "both" in this sentence is unnecessary.
  • link superfiring to superfire.
  • What is "Krupp cemented and nickel steel"?
• --DavidCane (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Design section: "fully loaded" is synonymous with "at full displacement. All other suggestions implemented. 60% speed loss at hard rudder was pretty typical for German ships of the period (the Helgoland-class battleships were the lowest, at 54% speed loss, the Nassau-class battleship the highest at 70%. The battlecruisers were more consistent: all of them lost 60% speed, save the Derfflinger-class battlecruisers, which lost 65%. I don't have the figures for British ships of the period.
  • If it was a common characteristic (which should be cited) then that could be explained. In its present format, the sentence seems to indicate that this was, in some way, remarkable. --DavidCane (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• I added this footnote; what do you think of it? Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Gröner's gives the boiler pressure in atmospheres, to which I've changed the article. The tar oil was sprayed on the coal in order to make it burn better. I've added a note stating as much. All other suggestions implemented.
• "B" was initially "Bruno"; other than that I've added the turret alphabetical names. Yes, over a limited range, the wing turrets could fire across the deck, but I don't have exact figures for the train limits. I believe there were also significant blast damage, but I can't recall where I read that. I can't tell you what Krupp cemented nickle steel is, other than it's a steel alloy that incorporates nickle, and that it's not produced by the Cementation process. It's mentioned in the 1910 Britannica Armor plates, but it doesn't actually give any information as to the process Krupp used. It's described here with more details about the process. At some point, an article on Krupp cemented steel may be a good idea. Parsecboy (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not a metallurgist, but this seems to suggest that the article at Krupp armour needs to be amended as it already seems to describe the process of manufacturing Krupp cemented armour. --DavidCane (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• To reply to the two comments not yet struck: Groner's only gives those figures for fuel consumption, and I don't know how to convert it to what you suggest; I tried doing so, but the result isn't right. Until I can find specific information about the ships' full broadside range (and a source for the citation, of course), I'm not going to add anything about it to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I've made my attempts at copyediting; please change what you would like back if it is wrong/worse, as I'm not a great copyeditor (I just go with what sounds better!)
  • An explanation of when "9% heeling" is would be nice. I might write battleship articles, but I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. :)
  • "However, the conflict reignited less than a month later on 29 June; this meant that the ships would have to remain in the area." What's the relationship here? The conflict starting up again did not force them to stay; it's not like they were doing a lot anyway (they were visiting ports).
  • "Following the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in July 1914, Rear Admiral Wilhelm Souchon recognized the imminent outbreak of war, and so immediately sailed to Pola for repair work for Goeben. The ships were pursued by British forces, but Goeben and Breslau managed to evade them and reach Istanbul by 10 August 1914." What happened in between repairs and Pola? (or did she depart Pola for Istanbul?)
  • "Known as Yavuz for short, she was made the flagship of the Ottoman Navy." Could this be better worded as "Popularly known as Yavaz, she was designated as the flagship of the Ottoman Navy."
  • "In 1936 she was renamed TCG Yavuz and remained the flagship of the Turkish Navy until 1950, although the ship was stationary in Izmit." If she never moved from Izmit, which is what this sentence implies (to me, at least), why is there a 1946 picture of her in Istanbul? ;) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review, Ed. The copyedits look good, so no problems there :) It was supposed to be 9 degrees heeling, but I must've gotten my wires crossed in between reading it and typing it in. Goeben and Breslau were sent to the Med as a response to the outbreak of war; I'd assume the High Command was attempting a show of force to influence the situation. Sort of like how the US Navy sends carrier battle groups to troubled areas in an attempt to influence things nowadays. The ships did indeed leave Pola once the repairs were completed, and headed straight for Istanbul/Constantinople. The ship was stationary after 1948, which I had not specified in the article, for some unknown reason (of maybe some interest, the photo of her in Istanbul in 1946 was during the visit of USS Missouri. Thanks again for the help. Parsecboy (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• My comments have been addressed and the article looks good to me, so it has my full support. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• More comments from David Cane
• Service History - Moltke
  • "The ship met her end when she was scuttled, along with the rest of the High Seas Fleet in 1919 to prevent them from falling into British hands." Need to make it clear that it was the German crew on board that scuttled Moltke. Also, if the ship and its crew were interned by the British at Scapa Flow, then, arguably they had already fallen into British hands. According to the scuttling article, the British wanted the fleet destroyed anyway to avoid bolstering the fleets of other nations by any redistribution. It might be better to say the fleet was scuttled to prevent its seizure and transfer to allied navies.
• Goeben
  • Franz Ferdinand was assassinated on 28 June 1914 not "in July".
  • I think a better explanation of how the gift of the Goeben to the Ottoman Empire helped bring the empire into the war on the German side.
  • The offer to the West Germany government would have been to sell the ship back not to buy it back.
• --DavidCane (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• I fixed the things you suggested, and added this footnote to clarify how exactly Goeben got the Ottomans involved in the war. Thanks for your very thorough review. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I have struck the items action. There still seem to be a couple of items to be actioned.
  • I think the fact that Goeben's shelling of Sevastopol (note spelling) led directly to the entry of the Ottoman Empire into the war should be included in the text of the article rather than in a note - arguably, it's the most important thing the ship did. A link to Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau#Ottoman engagement would be useful. --DavidCane (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I placed the note into the prose as you suggested. Parsecboy (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - I'll have an even more detailed look through in the next few hours, but it seems like anything I noticed on the initial review a few days ago has been fixed. Skinny87 (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Be sure to spell out the primary units in full on their first appearance. I caught "centimeter", but there may be others (kg?). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I spelled out the first "kilogram", "meter", "feet", and a few others. Parsecboy (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Mediterranean Division is a strange redlink, unlikely to be filled ... Mediterranean Division of What ? In the same paragraph, 28 cm is hyphenated once, not hyphenated once. Please ask Maralia to look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I removed the redlink for now (I may at some point create an article about the squadron, but maybe not). The hyphen for "28-cm" was wrong; I've removed it. Thanks for your suggestions, sometimes it's easy to miss the little things. Parsecboy (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yep, ISO and WP both say that when the unit is abbreviated, the hyphen is not used to join it to the value as a double adjective. Tony (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Provisional support

• "Royal Navy" sounds distincltly not American. Why "caliber" and "centimeter"? And "armor"?
• I'm seeing more of this type of thing: between 1973–1976. See WP:MOSHYPHEN ... "between 1973 and 1976". It recurs in a poor context at the end: "broken up between 1973–1976—the last remaining ship"; here, "and" will fix it, as required in any context. (Exception: your "to 1909–10" is fine, since the range is a kind of blob, a building year; do you agree?)
• One or two single-digit numbers that MoS says should probably be spelled out. (e.g., 3, 6) ... it's no bid deal, though, since there are lots of numerals in the vicinity. Tony (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• This class of ships has no particularly strong ties to the UK (it's not a British ship, after all—my view is that ENGVAR applies to things that are distinctly British or American, like Westminster Abbey or the Gettysburg Address; things that are only obliquely related can go either way. The equivalent would be requiring Montojo's flagship at Manila Bay to be written in AE because it fought American ships, which is a bit of a stretch in my opinion). That and I'm an American, and I started this article, so I wrote it in the variation that's more familiar to me (it was a bit of a headache when I wrote SMS Von der Tann in BE, because I had to constantly weed through things I had written in AE)
• I fixed the ndash in the last section, I didn't see any others that needed fixing (yeah, the 1908-09/1909-1910 seem to be correct to me)
• I seem to remember learning in a grade school English class that if there was more than one number if a sentence, you'd use numerals. I could be remembering that incorrectly though. Thanks for your review. Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• MOS says that adjacent quantities should be in different formats to ease readability. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support, looks good. A couple comments/requests:
  • "This was 7.5 degrees less than in the preceding Von der Tann" Avoid the ambiguous "this" in reference to something prior. This what?
  • "there was some consideration given to" This seems like a laborious way of saying simply "<subject> considered".

--Laser brain (talk) 18:12, 10 June 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 17:33, 9 June 2009 [93].

---

The Hardy Boys

Nominator(s): Ricardiana (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article status because it recently passed GA with a detailed and helpful review, and still more recently received a peer review that was likewise filled with thoughtful comments and helpful suggestions. I believe that the article now fulfills the FA criteria, but if I'm wrong, this process will help me improve the article further. Ricardiana (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if it is possible to somehow link to "Mystery of the Urinal Deuce" as this episode blatantly spoofed them and it demonstrates their reception in popular culture, specifically supporting the claim in the lead of "homeerotic overtones." Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but when I looked for reliable sources, I couldn't find any that I thought would count as reliable. Do you have any suggestions? You're right, it would be a helpful addition. Ricardiana (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll check. Also, I see "Jerry Gilroy" is redlinked. Perhaps this can be imported to Wikipedia and we can improve from there? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

And I've checked. Maybe, this from Google News, which if you check the full article notes "gay references to 'The Hardly Boys' (a play on the 'The Hardy Boys' series). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't read the whole article; it says "Free Trial", which I'm investigating right now. Also, it appears to be from a college newspaper - do you think that will count as a reliable source? It didn't show up in any of the databases I usually use. So far I've checked: Google Books, Google Archive News Search, Lexis Nexis, Access World News, MLA, JStor, and Project Muse. ~ About Jerry Gilroy - you're the expert on articles like this; your idea sounds fine to me. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

We would need an admin to import here and again, upon importing, I will gladly almost immediately begin expansion using Google Books results. Also, this one says, ""Mystery of the Urinal Deuce" is inspired by all the 9/11 conspiracies that propagated after the event (and also has one of the funniest Hardy Boys parodies I have ever seen)." Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Gilroy - sounds good to me. ~ Is tvsquad.com a reliable source? Also, I tried signing up for the "FREE!" trial and they want my credit card info. I don't want to give that out. Since you seem to have the whole article, could you post it on my talk-age or wiki-email it to me, by any chance? I would greatly appreciate it. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Article needs an WP:ENDASH fix throughout citations (I haven't looked at text); pls ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script to correct dashes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I've put in a request at Brighterorange's talk page. Ricardiana (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Brighterorange kindly ran his tool on the refs and citations; I have checked the text of the entire article. Everything should be OK now. Ricardiana (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I looked through the article when Nancy Drew was at FAC, and thought it FA status already from a glance. Since the above concerns are now over and done with, I can withhold my support nay longer. ceranthor 15:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I have watched closely as this article has gone from "B class" to a "GA", and definitely think this article is worthy FA status. One thing I might point out, is that, I think, "premise" would be a better name for the section currently entitled "characters". WHLfan (talk) 06:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, WHLfan - I'll change that in just a second. Ricardiana (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support: I'm pleased to support this interesting and well-written article, which I believe meets the criteria. I thought the article was excellent when I peer-reviewed it recently, and it has gotten better since then. All of my concerns have been addressed, although on a re-read today, I saw two minor things I had not noticed before. Neither prevents my support, but I thought I should mention them. (1) In the quote in the "Ghostwriters" section, "roughly equivalent to two month's wages for a typical newspaper reporter... ", shouldn't it be "months' " rather than "month's"? (2) In the "1927–1959" section, the first four lines of the Burgess blockquote bump into the blue quote box. This bumping might not occur on all computer monitors, but it looks odd on mine. Could the layout be tweaked a bit to eliminate the bumping? Perhaps the blue box could be made wider and shorter? Finetooth (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, great catches, Finetooth! You're absolutely right about the apostrophe. I'll fix that in a second. The blue box looks okay on my computer, but you're right, it should look good on all monitors. I'll try making the box wider and shorter, as you suggest - I'll post here when I've done that. Please let me know how it looks. Ricardiana (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Changes made - let me know what you think about the width of the blue box. Thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

All fixed. It looks fine. Finetooth (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.keeline.com/Hardy_Boys.pdf (I'm guessing this is a HB scholar, but we need some sort of proof for this...)

As discussed during Awadewit's GA review, Keeline has published a number of articles on the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew. He is indexed in the MLA International Bibliography. Ricardiana (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.justadventure.com/Press_Releases/HardyBoysTreasureDS_Oct2_08.shtm (lacks a publisher too. May be reliable if you can find it on the Sega site itself or on PR sites)

Changed to SEGA site link; added publisher. Ricardiana (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – My only complaint is that every paragraph in Premise begins with The Hardy Boys. I'd like to see at least one of them changed to provide some variety. Besides that, I think it's a top-notch article. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed beginning of third para. Ricardiana (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Images: There are only two images in the article. File:Stratemeyerposing.jpg is listed as public domain/pre 1923, all fields are filled out, shouldn't be any issues. The other image is File:Hbtt1rev.jpg (nonfree), but I think the fair use rationale holds up. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:01, 9 June 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 17:33, 9 June 2009 [94].

---

Wilfrid

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth, User:Malleus Fatuorum, User:Ning-ning

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think he's ready. Copyedits by Malleus and Ning-ning. More copyediting by both of them. Content checking by Deacon. Enough research to make me sick of the 7th century. I present to you, Wilfrid, saint and well... something else. This isn't your typical otherworldly saint, he's very much the nobleman. Exiled a number of times for clashing with kings, he practically wore a path between England and Rome all by himself. Bishop in a number of places, friend and foe of numerous kings and queens, Wilfrid's very much a larger than life figure. He's also a very very large article, almost 7900 words. 190 footnotes. A source list that would scare me if I had to review it (which, luckily, I don't.) Karan, or Sandy, can you add a co-nom here for Malleus and Ning-ning, please? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Congratulations on a very thorough and extensively sourced article! I enjoyed reading the different points of view from various sources on his life. I made some minor adjustments in prose and MOS and eliminated part of the last sentence of the lead that said "most historians ....". "Some historians..." might be more accurate if you want to keep that sentence but I did not think it was an encyclopedic comment, just scholarly opinion from a few sources. At the bottom of the article one historian calls him "Ascetic". Although I don't have a source, I read once about a bishop who travelled with others for protection. Since Wilfrid's own life was sought on one of his travels, his entourage might also have served this purpose. I compared this article to that found in the Catholic Encyclopedia and found them to be comparable regarding factual content. The Wikipedia article did not omit any major facts and provided a more comprehensive account of Wilfrid's life from a variety of viewpoints. This is worthy to be Featured Article. NancyHeise ^talk 19:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks Nancy, but you should know the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is the one found all over the internet, was written in 1913 (unless you're looking at the New Catholic Encyclopedia) and I should hope this article is more comprehensive ... As far as the last sentence of the lead, I think it's well substantiated by the sources. The verdict on Wilfrid is pretty uniform, no one says he was a bad man nor that he wasn't ascetic, but he was also proud, and not afraid of controversy. Not worth worrying over though. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth, I was looking at the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, not the New. Your article is much more comprehensive, yes, and very well done. Feel free to revert any of my changes, they are all minor and do not impede my support. NancyHeise ^talk 02:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Support A well-written and impressively-researched article, especially given the relative obscurity of the figure and the comparative difficulty of finding good sources on British figures of the Dark Ages (as opposed to, say, some modern American figure). Ricardiana (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Image review: images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• YOu have NO Idea how hard it is to get that stupid thing satisfied for a 7th century saint... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support and tiny nitpick A nice article, can't be many 7th century saints, bishops or missionaries left (I hope!) Now, just to show how picky FAC can be, in your source Yorke (2003), Martin Carver has his first name preceding surname, every other name in the references has the reverse order, including the otherwise similar Wolfe (2001) which has "in Brown, Michelle P.; Farr, Carol Ann." Can we have it as Carver, Martin please? jimfbleak (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • never mind, I've fixed it myself

• thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oh, and we have LOTS of early medieval saints and bishops left... really! I'm not even a quarter of the way done yet... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I've only read the lead so far; here are a few minor prose points for consideration:-

• "Theodore of Tarsus resolved the situation in Northumbria by deposing Ceadda and restoring Wilfrid as the Bishop of Northumbria." The final "of Northumbria" seems repetitive; why not just say "restoring Wilfrid as Bishop"?
• "His diocese was very large however,..." Inelegant. Either insert another comma after "large", or better, delete the however, which isn't really necessary. (Another alternative is "However, his diocese was very large,...")
• Last paragraph: the first and last sentences are related, and should run together. Also, can you do something about the "...Wilfred. Wilfred..." that comes in the middle? And "monasticism" should be linked.

Brianboulton (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Last paragraph; didn't edit that because the first sentence, with "historians then and now", is linked to the immediately following reference to Bede, a "then" historian. Ning-ning (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Other prose points have been attended to. Ning-ning (talk) 12:16, 7 June 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 17:33, 9 June 2009 [95].

---

Subtropical Storm Andrea (2007)

Nominator(s): ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it's June 1st, the start of hurricane season, and we just had a hurricane TFA. Two fellow hurricane editors took a look at the article to make sure it was up to scraps, and they suggested I FAC it. Here goes nothing. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Why not? Everything seems to be fine. mynameinc (t|c|o|r) 12:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Weak oppose Forgot to check references. I found 13 dead links and one non-applicable reference. mynameinc (t|c|o|r) 13:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• There are at least two dead links which need fixing.--Otterathome (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Weak oppose per dead links, otherwise the article is fine. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Support Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Some fixed. Not sure what to do about the dead tropical disturbance statements, though. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Dead links all sorted Jason Rees (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 14 (Rhome..) is lacking a publisher
• Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I'm not seeing any deadlinks with the tool at the moment.) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Publisher (National Hurricane Center) added. But about {{cite news}}: Why? Isn't that going to break the next time the template is changed? Why is such a widely-used template not following the MoS anyways? </rant> Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you think about it, the template makes sense in terms of newspapers. The publisher of a newspaper is the company that publishes it. The newspaper itself is the work. Look at it in comparison to {{cite book}}. The thing in italics in that is the title of the book, and the publisher is in plain text. All the cite templates actually make sense. {{cite web}} uses work for the overarching grouping on a website, so something like DANFS is the "Work" and the publisher is the Naval Historical Center. Just think "work" as the title of the book and publisher as the people who pay the bills. (And we don't need publishers for newspaper cites, unless you're really anal.)

I guess I should make it explicit: I fixed it a while ago... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Support though i suggest something about the long gap between Cliff and Andrea as i have read somewhere its a record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Rees (talk • contribs)

Support Since refs are fixed, I see no reason not to support. mynameinc (t|c|o|r) 20:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Image concern as follows:

• File:Maystormvapor.gif: please specify the source (navigation directions or link to the sub page), which sub-page of http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/trop-atl.html does this animation come from? Wikipedia:Image use policy#Animated images also recommends the use of only small animated images. At 4681.58 KB, the thumbnailed animation is pretty hefty; per the IUP, large animated images should be linked via a static image.

Other Images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The link is a "floater", which means it is a zoom in of a water-vapor scan from the GOES-EAST satellite (the normal link for the unzoomed animation would be http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/eaus/loop-wv.html). However, since there are only four available floater channels (for reasons too long to explain in here), the exact link in which the image was located (probably http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/flt/t1/loop-wv.html or similar) gets overwritten every fourth tropical storm, when the rest of the floaters have been allocated and the counter loops around. So the most precise way to get to floater images is to go to the original link (or to http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/floaters.html) and scroll down to the floaters section, and pick one, as that is how the image was originally obtained. However, it is not available there anymore (at least without purchasing the relevant GOES-EAST data set...). So I'm not sure how to address your request. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Image use policy page doesn't give a size limit to animated images. and though 4.6 mb is pretty big, I feel it is worth it, as the loop is stunning in how it shows such an unusual formation occur. We have similar images on other tropical cyclone articles, since a stationary image often doesn't do a storm justice. As for the location of it, I apologize it doesn't have a static link, but I'm afraid Tito is correct. The same issue came up for another FAC of mine. I hope that isn't a problem. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we can accept the image's license, see its talk page on Commons why evidence suggests so. As for the image size, I will let others decide on it if they desire. Jappalang (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

ImageMagick is not rendering the image now, so we may have to get a static shot. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The loop works fine for me. To avoid any issues, should we still replace it? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It just started rendering for me again. I don't know... I don't have a strong opinion on the issue, one way or another. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Support --Anhamirak 14:25, 8 June 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 17:33, 9 June 2009 [96].

---

Tropical Storm Marco (2008)

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this article meets the criteria for a featured article. It's been looked over many times attaining A-class status and recently has undergone a peer review. Hopefully this time most of the concerns with prose are minor or non-existent. As always, all thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Good job on the article. I have A few minor style issues, though. I'd also like some clarification on a few points outlined below as well as more information generally speaking.
  • "a tropical wave reached the same area, and the system spawned circulation center over Belize." Is it some kind of hurricane jargon not to use an article with circulation center? It seems to me, that this should read "spawned a circulation center" or "spawned its circulation center" or seomthing like that.

Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "falling at rates up to 1 inches (25.4 mm) per hour," Should be up to 1 inch per hour.

Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • " The rains from Marco worsened flood situations in areas of Mexico already suffering from severe flooding." Why were they already suffering flooding?

Heavy rains prior to Marco I presume. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Any idea when those rains took place? Were they result of another cyclone? Cool3 (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Early/mid September to Mid/late October. It was the result of cold fronts and tropical waves. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "One river that overflowed its banks flooded left the towns of Minatitlan and Hidalgotitlan under 10 ft (3 m) of water." I think you need to remove "flooded" for this sentence to make sense. Also, what was the name of the river?

Source doesn't specify Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "when a lake and a river overflowed their banks." What lake? What river?

Source doesn't specify Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't find the name of the lake but I found the two rivers. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "The Government of Mexico reported that 4,700 blankets, 2,900 mattresses, 5,554 bottles of water (each containing 500 milliliters), 260,000 boxes of milk, 250,000 packages of biscuits, and 12,400 boxes of school supplies." That's not a sentence. I believe you should have something like "had been distributed" at the end.

Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • The placement of the final paragraph is odd. It would seem to make more sense somewhere else, though I'm not quite sure where.

I'm not sure how it's odd, that's where the tropical cyclone project always puts records and retirement notes about tropical cyclones. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I mean specifically "At 0052 UTC on October 7, tropical storm force winds extended 11.5 miles (18.5 km) from the center of Marco. This made Marco the smallest tropical cyclone ever recorded, surpassing the previous record set by Cyclone Tracy on December 24, 1974 when gale force winds extended 30 miles (48 km)" This seems like it would better belong in the Meteorological history section as it is meteorological. If this sort of placement is indeed customary, then I will bow to custom. Cool3 (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's the record set by Marco, that's why it's in the Preparations, impact and records section which is how the project generally does it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • It's only 861 words of readable prose. There's really nothing else to say? Personally, I get to the end, and think: that's it?
  • Source number 21 comes from the Xinhua News Agency, which is sometimes criticized for distortion and unreliability. If there's no other source for the number of people affected, then I don't have a problem with referencing Xinhua, but if you have another source, I think that would be preferable.

Xinhua has never been a problem for TC's, they always report properly form what I've seen in their reports. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Any idea how many people were injured?

No one was injured. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Not even slightly? Not so much as a broken bone? Cool3 (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This does indeed seem to be the case and I think it's significant enough to work into the text of the article. If you don't already have a source explicitly stating there were no injuries, one can be found here. Cool3 (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not really notable but I added it in anyways, I cited the TCR as it's much more reliable than that blog. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Any idea on the dollar value of the damages?

No source has this information. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • In the paragraph on Marco being the smallest hurricane, you state "tropical storm force winds extended 11.5 miles" for Marco but "gale force winds extended 30 miles" Is this comparing the same thing? Are gale force and tropical storm force the same velocity? If so, I'd suggest referring to both with the same name to avoid possible confusion. If the two are different, then an explanation of what this comparison means would be quite helpful.

Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Overall, I'm sorry to say that I'm not convinced this is quite FA worthy. I've simply never seen one quite this short, and I think there's probably more to say. Cool3 (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that there is not any more information available for this storm. It's a very short-lived storm, lasting less than two days, but is notable due to its size record. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did another search through Spanish sources and found very little additional information, mainly between pages 12 and 19 of my search. After that, there was nothing so I believe I've used all available sources for the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the source check Ealdgyth. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Nice work. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox

Support - I doubt you could extend this out much as the storm lasted for two days.Jason Rees (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I'm surprised Cyclonebiskit managed to find as much info as he did. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review: images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the image review Jappalang. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I believe that this article meets FA criteria. Nice work Cyclonebiskit. Darren23 (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - for a short, but well-written and researched contribution. Graham Colm ^Talk 12:35, 7 June 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 17:33, 9 June 2009 [97].

---

1941 Florida hurricane

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC), Cool3

I am nominating this for featured article because it's been archived twice with no outstanding concerns; third time's the charm? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• References check out okay with the link checker tool, no fair use images or poorly tagged free ones, so that checks out as well. Wizardman 20:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Provisional Oppose. I feel like a lot of details I'd like to know are missing, and that's not a good feeling after reading a featured article. Also a few nitpicky style issues. (Involved) support. I think this is now an excellent article and fully satisfies the FA criteria (full disclosure: I have contributed a large amount of content to the current version of the article and have been named as a co-nominator. Thus, I may not be considered entirely neutral). Cool3 (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cool3

"Evacuations were recommended from Homestead to Key West." How many people followed the recommendations? Did most people evacuate? Few? I haven't been able to find an exact number. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC) "No casualties occurred in the cit." What is the cit? Typo for city I assume? Good catch, fixed. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC) "Properties and gardens received significant damage." How much damage is "significant damage"? Unknown. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC) "Several communities lost electricity" How many is several? Unknown. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC) "barometric pressure fell to 982 mb". This should probably be written out (and preferably linked) to millibar. "five men drowned in the storm tide at a fishing net drying yard." Where was the yard? (Panacea, Florida) Sources don't specific this. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC) They may just not be available, but it would be very nice to see some pictures of the damage associated with the storm. I've looked around for damage pictures for a while, but none are available as far as I can tell. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC) "When the United States entered World War II, new vehicles become unavailable, forcing residents to resort to horse-drawn carriages for transportation." The storm was in October 1941. The United States entered WWII in December 1941. That's what the source says. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Side note, the US was "in" the war, if not formally, a bit before Dec 1941. Escort of convoys in the Atlantic started in summer 1941, I believe. I think rationing was introduced for war material before Pearl Harbor also. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC) You give a figure of $675,000 as the total damage in the infobox, but in the article you state "total losses in the state are estimated at $675,000 (1941 USD)", seeming to suggest that that figure only refers to the damage in Florida. What about the damage in the Bahamas and in Georgia? According to the source, "total damages [...] were estimated at $675,000 [...] divided between the northern and southern portions of the state" (the state being Florida presumably). –Juliancolton | Talk 15:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC) I get no sense of the historical significance of the hurricane. Is it one remembered for anything? Does anyone still talk about it? Compared to other storms Florida has seen, this one was relatively insignificant; moreover, considering how long ago it was, info is scarce. I've found no info on historical context, and I highly doubt any is available. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC) "Initially, there were reports of 20 missing fishermen." I assume they were all found? It would be nice to state that. The sources I've found don't follow-up with this, but I'll keep searching nonetheless. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC) As I look around for more sources, I continually find references to how unusual the rainfall distribution of this hurricane was (the light rainfall in South Florida). As a matter of fact, this rainfall distribution pattern seems to have been the lasting legacy of the hurricane (insofar as it had one). The article does briefly refer to the rainfall pattern, but perhaps a more involved discussion would be appropriate? Of course, such a discussion might be entirely too technical, but our featured articles should satisfy the expert and a discussion on this point seems necessary in order to do so. Cool3 (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC) I thought about that as well. There are entire documents devoted to this aspect of the storm, but I was concerned that the article would become too technical. I do agree with you, though, in that it should be covered more extensively in the article, so I'll add a few more relevant sentences. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Done. It was a bit difficult summarizing those heaps of info in an accessible manner, but I added quite a bit more regarding this. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC) On the whole, a great article. I look forward to supporting once my concerns are addressed. Cool3 (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the review! –Juliancolton | Talk 15:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Almost there. I just did a copyedit. The article is very factual, very precise, but I'm wondering if we can inject more color (the people collecting pecans blown out of tress, for example) and more of how this hurricane affected the particular terrain and people it passed over. We might be able to find out that kind of information in sources other than storm reports. I'll work with JC on this. - Dank (push to talk) 00:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into this. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Added a bit more. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. I've checked everything at http://www.newspaperarchive.com, and JC has checked everything at the hurricane news archive. My guess is anything else JC might say would be WP:OR, so unless someone has some ideas, I think we're done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I like the additions. In a different article, I might object on the basis that they're too "slice of life", but I think understanding how real lives were affected and how the media covered the event at the time adds color and interest. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Nicely done JC and everyone else who contributed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "powerlines" and "power lines"
    • Fixed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "At the time, the storm was determined to be a compact, well-developed hurricane." Sounds like the storm had a personality, and it was determined to do something.
    • Good point, reworded. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Even if the source uses the anachronistic "firemen", we don't have to.
    • Sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you please elaborate a bit? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I meant, we should say "firefighters" I think. --Laser brain (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. Firefighters is more modern I suppose, and also more precise; changed. Cool3 (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "three Coast Guard planes dropped warnings to boats near the Florida coast." What does this mean?

    They dropped warnings (leaflets I assume) to tell boats that the hurricane was approaching. Cool3 (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "A detachment of officers from the Florida Highway Patrol were sent to Miami and patrolled along highways to provide gas to motorists evacuating the storm." A detachment was. And, do you mean "fuel" or "gasoline"? "Gas" is too non-specific or colloquial.

    Grammar fixed, thanks for pointing that out. It was gasoline; I've clarified that. Cool3 (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "including a schooner, four sailboats" A schooner is a sailboat. Sailboat is a more general category of boats operating under sail power. Either say five sailboats or be more specific for the four.

    Clarified as well as possible to "four smaller sailboats". The sources don't say how they were rigged, but they were smaller than the schooner. As a matter of fact, the other source reveals that they were four sloops. Cool3 (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "On Cat Island, the storm produced a rainfall total of 1.62 inches (41 mm)." I don't know, "1.62 inches (41 mm) of rainfall" is so much more elegant.

--Laser brain (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of these should be fixed. Thanks for the review, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support, looking good. --Laser brain (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "and entered the Atlantic Ocean on October 8." Picky stuff, but can you put a non-breaking space between the "October" and "8"? The line breaks between the two on my monitor.

  Done.

• "although there was unusually little rainfall in some areas." The verb "to be" is very weak here; how about "although some areas received unusually litttle rainfall"? Also, I don't see the use of "although"; do high winds automatically mean lots of rainfall? I've experienced plenty of times when that's happened where I live.

  This is indeed highly unusual for a tropical cyclone. Indeed, one of the sources for the article, "An Analysis of an Unusual Rainfall Distribution in a Hurricane" is devoted to the topic of the light rainfall in Florida. To quote from it: "The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the reason for the surprisingly light rainfall in a recent tropical hurricane. In most meteorology textbooks, hurricanes are said to be accompanied by heavy rainfall." I believe JC is working on a little extra content on this subject at the moment. Cool3 (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

More comments later. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This article was promoted, and I have supported because whatever concerns I've had or might still have aren't enough to obscure the fact that this article is worthy of the FA star. I will continue the review on the talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:42, 9 June 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 22:24, 6 June 2009 [98].

---

Battersea Bridge

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 22:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know… that the great×8 grandfather of the Princess of Wales commissioned Battersea Bridge, and in 2006 a whale was found under the bridge? Coincidence? You decide…

Yet another one in the Thames Bridges series, and hopefully those who know it only as the rather unloved current bridge will be interested to see that there's a genuinely interesting history behind it, while those who don't know it at all will see that the parts of London outside the City and West End tourist centres and the leafy suburbs have interesting stories in their own right. As with the last couple in this series, I think this says everything that ought to be said on the topic without going into excessive detail. – iridescent 22:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Copy-edited (n-dashes, some repetitive word usage, etc.)
• Harvard links from footnotes to references checked. Publication year for Pay, Lloyd and Waldegrave corrected, now consistent with date listed in references section. All links from notes to references work correctly.
• Article has no ambiguous links. JN466 09:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thumbs up Comments over the line - two below ain't deal-breakers. awright then, I'll cast me meat pies over it before I open me north and south...notes ta follow....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

least busy.. - pity there ain't a positive ta use 'ere. I'd say "quietest" but not sure how general that is.

Parliamentary concerns about the reliability of the bridge obliged the Battersea Bridge Company to provide a ferry service.. "obliged" sounds funny used in the active here, but I am having trouble thinking of an alternative.

Addendum - actually I did think of one more thing - is there anything on how the presence of a new crossing impacted on the development (or otherwise) of Battersea? I remember reading about the history of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and it was interesting how surrounding areas change with new crossings etc. This would be a good addition and I hope it can be found :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Trouble is, there isn't an obvious antonym for "busy". "Quietest" has connotations of noise (and the much busier London Bridge, for example, built in the 1970s with the advantage of 75 years of technological advances, probably generates less noise).

The wording in the original source was "a clause was inserted into the Act to the effect that [Spencer] must provide a ferry service at the same rate as the bridge tolls in case the bridge was closed for repairs". I was trying to summarise it in a less clumsy way. I can't think of a less clumsy word than "obliged", but if anyone can, feel free to change it.

Because it was sandwiched between two existing bridges a couple of miles either side, and because there wasn't a major north/south road here, Battersea Bridge didn't have the same impact on development as, for example, Vauxhall Bridge did in opening up the south bank. Because of the time period in question, it's pretty much impossible to separate out what development (if any) was due to the bridge itself, from the broader urban sprawl caused by the railways. Certainly on this map of 1850 – 80 years after the bridge opened – the Battersea side is still farmland (and, oddly, a turpentine factory), while the Chelsea side marks the western limit of London, which makes me think that the driving factor in growth was Battersea railway station (opened 1863) and not the bridge. – iridescent 14:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Good reasoning and noted. That would be good to put in article if it can be referenced that it didn't impact on the development, but I concede that might not actually be mentioned anywhere, so again, no biggie. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for "obliged":

1. Parliament was concerned about the reliability of the bridge and required the Battersea Bridge Company to provide a ferry service ... (in that case, change "required" to "needed" a couple of sentences earlier on, to avoid the repetition of "required")
2. Due to parliamentary concerns about the reliability of the bridge, the Battersea Bridge Company was obliged to provide a ferry service ...
3. Concerns were expressed in parliament about the reliability of the bridge, and the Battersea Bridge Company was obliged to provide a ferry service ...

Looking at the flow of the paragraph as a whole, I think my preference would be for no. 3. JN466 14:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for "least busy":

1. As the narrowest surviving road bridge over the Thames in London, it carries less traffic than most of the other Thames bridges in London.
2. The narrowest surviving road bridge over the Thames in London, it is less busy than most of the other Thames bridges in London. JN466 14:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with 3 for "obliged" and have changed it accordingly. Regarding "least busy", I personally think "one of the least busy" scans better than "less busy than most of the others" – that "most of the others" sounds a bit so-what to me – but wouldn't lose sleep either way. – iridescent 15:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The only other solution I could offer would be As the narrowest surviving road bridge over the Thames in London, it carries comparatively little traffic. But I have no problem with the current text either. JN466 15:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Me to with no. 3 for "obliged", and agree the other is tricky and was pondering out loud more than anything. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• 'Comments

• Potentially useful info at: Conservation of bridges By G. P. Tilly, Alan Frost, Jon Wallsgrove, Gifford and Partners Taylor & Francis, 2002. ISBN 0419259104. pp. 87-88. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Apparently 15,000 vehicles/pedestrians (?) traverse the bridge in a 12-hour period, see p. 401 An Economic Study of the City of London. By John Dunning, Economists Advisory Group, E. Victor Morgan, City of London (England). Court of Common Council. Routledge, 2003. ISBN 0415313481 Ling.Nut (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Mmmm, apparently Hilaire Belloc wrote a poem called "stanzas written on Battersea Bridge during a South-Westerly gale," the full text of which is online. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Will have a look at the "Conservation" one if I can find it. Cookson, which I've used quite heavily as a source, references it in the bibliography so I suspect any relevant material is already there; I don't want to get too heavily into the 1992 restoration (which isn't all that major a development, consisting mainly of repainting it back to its original colors and restoring the design of the original lamp-posts).

Regarding passenger traffic, on all this series I'm using Transport for London's AADT figure for 2004 (the most recent I can find that lists all the bridges, so the one I've used for consistency in comparison) which in this case was 26,041. Personally I think using multiple data sets would be too confusing, as well as the ambiguity of "12 hour period" (1900-0700 presumably has a completely different traffic pattern to 0700-1900, for example).

There are quite a lot of poems, letters etc – Wordsworth & Tennyson certainly wrote about it as well. While I've included a section on its significance in painting (as the subject of Whistler v Ruskin, Whistler's paintings of the bridge in particular were seminal in establishing impressionism as a mainstream form), I'm reluctant to go down the "…in popular culture" route; one can generally find some poem by someone about virtually any 18th-19th century landmark. – iridescent 16:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. Coincidence, or conspiracy? You decide. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. Well written, comprehensive, good images, well referenced. JN466 13:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Wow, very cool article, practically flawless (ie. I just had personal preferences which are probably better the way they are now). ceranthor 15:44, 4 June 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 22:24, 6 June 2009 [99].

---

William Barley

Nominator(s): User:TwilligToves

Taking the leap and nominating one of the articles that I started and have edited off-and-on for a while now. A short little bio on a "somewhat remarkable" Elizabethan music publisher who apparently isn't worthy of Grove ODNB. My biggest worry on this one is whether I adequately explained the confusing nature of Elizabethan printing patents in a concise manner. Thanks in advance for the reviews. BuddingJournalist 05:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Looks like a very good article overall. There is ambiguity at certain points, but I assume that is because of the limitations of the avaliable sources. Richard Byrd is a disambiguation link, and none of the articles there are about a 1500s composer. Will do a full read-through, and probably offer my support afterwards. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for catching that. Should be William Byrd not Richard. Doh. Look forward to your review. BuddingJournalist 05:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Caught only a few things during a full read-through:

• The captions should have periods because they are full sentences.
• Drapers' Company: "and other drapers/booksellers joined the company within a few years so that they could continue their trade." Any way that the slash could be removed, such as using a hyphen or saying "drapers and booksellers" or similar?
• Stationers' Company: "From 1606 to 1613, less than half of the music books published from 1606 to 1613 recognized Barley's rights on the imprint." Would be good to see that re-worded without the repetition. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review, Giants.

• They're not actually full sentences so they don't merit full stops.
• changed to "draper-booksellers"
• Heh, nice catch. Removed one of the instances of the time period. BuddingJournalist 00:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support – Lovely article that tells an interesting life story. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - A well-written and impressively-researched article; finding information on an Elizabethan music publisher not covered by Grove is no easy task, and this article pulls it off in a polished manner. Ricardiana (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support...I actually meant to say ODNB above, not Grove (heck, I even cite Grove, so I don't how I managed to say Grove up there...). :) TwilligToves (talk) 09:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - I endorse the positive comments above. Two small things:

• note 1 says "This notion has been discredited by more modern scholarship." I'd welcome a bit more detail. Would that be Lavin and/or Johnson?

• "privileged persons" (privilegiati) at Oxford University is a status with a precise meaning that won't be understood by most readers, and was perhaps less elevated than they might imagine. An explanation is here

William Avery (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.

• Lavin was the first to challenge this view. Johnson, Grove all agree with his viewpoint. I tweaked the note a bit...is the result OK?
• I added a short sentence clarifying Oxford's notion of "privileged persons" and added your link as a source. Clark, too, has a great explanation on this, even though it's over a century old source. TwilligToves (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Super, thanks! William Avery (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review: no portraits (nobody bothers what a publisher looks like, unless he was patronised by kings). The two images used in this article are of the two works Barley has published, and are in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. I thought the article was well-written and easy to follow. Good work! Karanacs (talk) 20:46, 5 June 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 22:24, 6 June 2009 [100].

---

Water fluoridation

Nominator(s): Eubulides (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This became a Good Article after a careful and helpful review from Doc James along with critical and ultimately supportive comments by II. It went through peer review with positive comments by Finetooth and a useful quick comment from Colin. Its first attempt at FA status did not reach consensus, but elicited comments from Xasodfuih, Peripitus, and Mattisse, all of which I've tried to address in edits since then.

Fluoridation is sometimes controversial. The article focuses on technical aspects and briefly summarizes the controversy in its Ethics and politics section, with a subarticle Opposition to water fluoridation (not part of this nomination) that goes into more detail. Eubulides (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

How about an image of severe dental fluorosis to contrast with the mild one?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't be appropriate, as this article is about water fluoridation (the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay), and water fluoridation does not cause severe dental fluorosis. A good image of a severe case would be appropriate for Dental fluorosis article, though, if such an image could be found. Eubulides (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This paper says the rate has been found to be 0.3 and 0.6% in some studies. Now that we are getting fluoride from multiple sources this is becoming more of a concern.

And this one says "Chi-square tests showed a strong association between fluoride levels in well drinking water and severity fiuorosis of tooth #11 (/'<0.001). However, 16.1 % of the children exposed to 0.50-0.79 ppm F were free of dental fluorosis while about 24%) had severe dental fluorosis with pitting (TFI score a5)." Dental fluorosis in 12-15-year-old rural children exposed to fluorides from well drinkin water in the Hail region of Saudi Arabia Source: Community dentistry and oral epidemiolo [0301-5661] Akpata yr:1997vol:25 iss:4 pg:324

So I think this needs to be discussed in greater detail. Some areas have high natural levels of fluoride, some get fluoride from multiple sources, and sometimes the fluoridation equipment breaks down. Just saying that anything other than mild fluorosis does not occur from water fluoridation is a bit dishonest. Even though of course the risks of severe fluorisis is very small.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm struggling to find sources that give a rate of severe fluorosis due to artificial water fluoridation. I see some population studies, but it isn't clear they tell us anything about water fluoridation. At present, I don't see how we can judge whether "severe fluorosis" needs to be mentioned in this article at all, let alone have a picture of it. Colin°^Talk 17:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This paper is the best I can find. There is a chart comparing various degrees of fluorosis among populations receiving natural water with sub-optimal fluoride, with those receiving optimal artificially fluoridated water, with those receiving naturally fluoridated water (where there there is no history of taking fluoride supplements). So water fluoridation could be judged "guilty of increasing" Questionable Fluorosis from 28.4% to 36.0%; Very Mild Fluorosis from 11.9% to 19.9%; Mild Fluorisis from 3.0% to 4.4% but no change in Moderate fluorosis at 0.3% and no change in Severe Fluorosis at 0.3%. I worked out the sample size of the suboptimal fluoride group who didn't take supplements was 41.3% of 2081 = 810. So 0.3% of that is 3 cases. In the artificially fluoridated group, the sample size was 85% of 1445 = 1228. And 0.3% of that is 4 cases. These are tiny numbers, so there really isn't enough data to know, in a large population, how many extra cases of moderate or severe fluorosis are due to water fluoridation, but if this is the best analysis we have, there currently isn't any evidence that water fluoridation is guilty of causing any extra cases of moderate or severe fluorosis. Colin°^Talk 17:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should state something like "with normal water fluoridation rates of severe dental fluorosis or exceedingly low, however cases have been reported in certain population with risk factors ref, in cases in which equipment has failed and at low rates in populations who are receiving floride from muitiple sources ref" I came across a paper from Africa commenting on how malnutrition increases ones suceptibility to dental flurosis, we have had accedents upnorth that have lead to severe dental fluorosis and death, and have seen papers written about the concerns from fluoride when it is received from muitiple sources which would have been less true in 1980. Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The source doesn't support your proposed text, which will make the reader think the "normal water fluoridation" is responsible for the "exceedingly low rates of severe dental fluorosis". Colin°^Talk 19:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that the papers above say the passage I have suggested but I could easily find papers to support what I have just written. This paper for instance found rates of severe fluorosis of 24.1% and 75.9% in mod to high natural fluoride areas. PMID 16430523

Now to set the record straight I am not saying that we should not fluorinate the water we just need to reasonabily discuss the side effects and benefits. Which I will say is mostly done at this point but could use a bit of further clarification.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

We need to stick with sources that discuss artificial water fluoridation when dealing with side effects and benefits. Plus, although the initial clause of the proposed text is technically correct, it is quite misleading. Colin°^Talk 19:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Also, please see my "Severe fluorosis issue" comment below. Eubulides (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the page just about artificial water fluoridation or water fluoridation in general? We all agree that some areas fluoride levels are so high they lead to severe dental flurosis in a large portion of the population naturally.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This is just about artificial water fluoridation, but I do think it would be nice to have a picture of more noticeable fluorosis. My little brother and a couple of my cousins have worse fluorosis than the effect seen in that picture. Perhaps we should ask User:Dozenist, the dentist who contributed it, if he can come up with another picture with more noticeable fluorosis, since I'm sure he sees it. II | (t - c) 06:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• The term "water fluoridation" means "controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay". This definition excludes fluoridation above recommended levels, a topic that is covered in detail somewhere else in Wikipedia. Although the Water fluoridation article briefly discusses the issue of fluoride above recommended levels, it does so only when this is directly relevant to the main topic.
• Any new image should be chosen so as not to mislead a naive reader into thinking that there is reliable evidence that water fluoridation significantly increases the risk of aesthetically-objectionable dental fluorosis. (Such thinking would contradict both the York and the NHMRC reviews, our best reviews.) It's fine to use a image of non-aesthetically-objectionable fluorosis, as we have reliable sources saying this occurs. But aesthetically-objectionable fluorosis would stray from what our reliable sources are saying.

Eubulides (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Severe fluorosis issue. Some of the above comments are based on the theory that water fluoridation is a significant cause of severe dental fluorosis. However, this simply isn't the case. Here are some comments about the 3 sources cited above:

• Akpata et al. 1997 (PMID 9332811) is not about water fluoridation: it is about water naturally fluoridated above recommended levels. In that primary study, even the 10% of wells that were "low-fluoride" (0.50–0.79 mg/L fluoride) were above the levels recommended by the WHO for water fluoridation (0.5 mg/L in hot and dry climates). Also, the severe fluorosis observed in those wells could easily be explained by halo effects from even-higher-level wells, or by children moving any time in the past dozen years before the study (the study did not examine either issue).
• Wondwossen et al. 2006 (PMID 16430523) is also not about water fluoridation; it is about moderate- and high-fluoride areas in the Ethiopian Rift Valley. Even its "moderate-fluoride" areas mostly consist of wells that are way above recommended levels (in some cases by a factor of 4).
• Beltrán-Aguilar et al. 2002 (PMID 11868834) is directly relevant to water fluoridation, but as Colin said, it directly contradicts the claim that water fluoridation causes severe fluorosis.

While we're on the subject of severe dental fluorosis, unless I'm missing something we haven't seen reliable sources supporting the following claims made in comments above:

• "cases have been reported in certain population with risk factors"
• "we have had accedents upnorth that have lead to severe dental fluorosis and death" (We do have reliable sources on death, and that topic is covered in Water fluoridation #Safety; it's the severe-dental-fluorosis part of this claim that is dubious.)
• "at low rates in populations who are receiving floride from muitiple sources"
• "in cases in which equipment has failed".

Two other comments on dental fluorosis:

• "I came across a paper from Africa commenting on how malnutrition increases ones suceptibility to dental flurosis" Can you please let us know the citation for that? Offhand it doesn't seem directly relevant to water fluoridation, but perhaps the source establishes the relevance.
• Multiple reviews are available on the subject of water fluoridation and fluorosis. As per WP:MEDRS#Definitions and WP:PSTS, the Water fluoridation article should typically defer to what these reviews say, and should not cite primary sources in order to dispute the reviews.

Eubulides (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the paper on equipment failure Waldbott GL (May 1981). "Mass intoxication from accidental overfluoridation of drinking water". Clin. Toxicol. 18 (5): 531–41. doi:10.3109/15563658108990280. PMID 7023807.

Here is papers that discusses many sources [101][102]

This one says "While the increase has occurred primarily in the very mild and mild categories of dental fluorosis, there is also some evidence that the prevalence is increasing in the moderate and severe classifications as well."[103]

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the paper on many sources (Skotowski et al. 1995, PMID 7562728). I followed the reference chain to a recent review that discusses the topic (Alvarez et al. 2009, PMID 19179949, freely readable, yay!) and added some coverage of it. This review isn't the best quality, but it is reliable and it is certainly better than nothing.
• The paper on equipment failure (Waldbott 1981, PMID 7023807) isn't relevant to fluorosis, as it doesn't mention fluorosis at all. More generally, that paper is a primary study of one overfeed incident, and for the overfeed issue we're better off using a reliable review that summarizes the topic. Water fluoridation #Safety already does this, citing Balbus and Lang 2001 (PMID 11579665).
• As far as I know, the primary study about increase in moderate/severe fluorosis (Clark 1994, PMID 8070241) doesn't attribute this to water fluoridation, but to fluoride in general. Also, that study is rather old, and as fluoride practice has changed since then (particularly for infants) its current relevance is a bit suspect. A much more recent primary study by the same author (Clark et al. 2006, PMID 16674751) found no significant difference in dental fluorosis of aesthetic concern after water fluoridation was discontinued in one community, which suggests that water fluoridation was not a significant cause of the problem in that case. In any case Water fluoridation shouldn't be citing either of these primary sources by Clark now that it is citing a reliable review on the topic.

Eubulides (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think I'm confused about the difference between "topical fluorides" and the fact that all fluoride therapy works "topically". I'm guessing that fluoridated water doesn't much affect the teeth directly (contact between the water being held in the mouth briefly while drunk) but is absorbed and the fluoride comes back in the saliva. Is that correct? Could we say so in the mechanism section? Out of interest... I'm also guessing that mouthwash has the opposite mechanism in that you don't swallow it so it is only effective while some wash remains in your mouth. One of the sources commented that fluoride tablets can be more effective if sucked for as long as possible. Is that because it can have a directly-topical effect as well as the ingested...saliva route? Colin°^Talk 12:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure your intuition is wrong. When you drink fluoridated water, that water washes over the teeth and perhaps a bit of that water remains in your mouth, exerting a topical effect. Once it's drunk it's either excreted or distributed to the entire body as well as the mouth, significantly diluting any effect it would have on the mouth area. There's a paper which argues that the systemic effect is understated (Newbrun 2007), but I don't have access to the paper, and he's going against the consensus. I'd say at most the systemic effect is 10% (I seem to remember reading that from the NRC), more likely lower. II | (t - c) 07:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am also confused on the topical vs. topical-saliva issue. I have a few comments on the content issues saved to Notepad, but got distracted before chasing down the reference on topical effects. Perhaps Eubulides could elaborate. On a technical well-written and well-referenced basis though, the article is stellar.

Also, the topical bit I believe is mostly for adults. For children, systemic ingestion may be a little different. Again, it's been a while since I visited the topic, and the discussions are split between this and the "Opposition" article, so it's rather difficult to pin down where this has been discussed previously. Franamax (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the effect of fluoridated water is almost entirely topical, for both adults and children. A bit of fluoride does come back via plasma to the saliva, but this apparently doesn't benefit teeth much. For many years it was thought that there were systemic effects, but nowadays reliable sources generally agree that systemic effects have little benefit. (Newbrun evidently is an exception, but his 2007 paper is not cited much.) Thanks for bringing up this issue; I added some text to try to clear it up, citing Hellwig & Lennon 2004 (PMID 15153698) on topical vs systemic and Oganessian et al. 2007 (PMID 18780642) on plasma. (And thanks for the compliment, Franamax!) Eubulides (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I think the sentence about "systemic (whole-body) fluoride" is still confusing as it mentions swallowing supplements rather than the swallowing of fluoridated water, which is more directly relevant to this article. Could we find a source that directly states that it is the presence of fluoridated water in the mouth that contributes to fluoride in the saliva and thus to remineralisation. Perhaps also the mechanism section could note that fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash are simply more concentrated methods of delivering fluoride to the mouth. I read with interest in the Sheiham 2001 article that brushing with non-fluoride toothpaste has no effect on dental caries.

If the positive effects of fluoride occur due to what you put and hold in your mouth, and only once teeth have erupted, then the negative effects of fluoride seem to be due to what you swallow, and only up to the age of about eight (ignoring toxic doses). So I think the third paragraph in Mechanism is a bit confusing as it mainly concerns the ingestion of fluoride. I note that your source only indicates that drinking water is "typically" the most important source of fluoride: the article text and the two sources seem to indicate that in low-fluoride-water-areas, ingested toothpaste "may" result in higher fluoride consumption that from the water.

Should the Mechanism discuss the mechanism behind fluorosis, or just stick to the mechanism behind the desired effects? If the the later, then perhaps the body-intake stuff should be moved to the Safety section, and keep this section totally topical. Colin°^Talk 12:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Could we find a source that directly states..." I attempted that, citing Tinanoff 2009 rather than Oganessian et al. 2007. I couldn't offhand find a source making the "more concentrated" point, though obviously it's true.
• "I read with interest in the Sheiham 2001 article that brushing with non-fluoride toothpaste has no effect on dental caries." Good point; I added that.
• "the third paragraph in Mechanism is a bit confusing as it mainly concerns the ingestion of fluoride ... 'typically' ... 'may'" Thanks; I tried to fix that.
• "Should the Mechanism discuss the mechanism behind fluorosis" Yes, I thnk so, and the change cited in the previous bullet also attempts to do that.

Thanks for the comments; they're helping to improve the article. Eubulides (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment about alternatives. This section is a bit of a jumble; the lead sentence is particularly hard to parse. Covering the mix of theoretical and unproven methods before covering the proven standard methods (in detail) is a mistake IMO. How about abandoning the lead paragraph and have the following paragraphs: 1. Fluoride toothpaste - head and shoulders the most important and effective alternative. 2. Other community programmes(salt, milk, healthy-eating, etc) 3. Other personal methods (mouthwash, sealants, chewing gum etc). 4. Theoretical, research and unproven ideas. Colin°^Talk 20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestion. I installed a change that did much of what you suggest. It puts the unproven stuff after the proven stuff. It turns out that "healthy-eating" doesn't work, by the way; I guess nobody follows the regimen. (Our summary of Kumar 2008, PMID 18694870, briefly discusses this.) However, I left the sealants first, as they're the most effective; put the fluoride mouthwash next to the other fluoride treatments; and put chewing gum later. Eubulides (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment on cost. The numbers here are all relative, with the aim of showing it is cost-effective. But since they are small, they are perhaps hard for the reader to appreciate the total cost of tooth decay. Your Sheiham 2001 paper claims "Dental diseases, particularly dental caries, are the most expensive part of the body to treat. Caries is indeed the most expensive human disease in terms of direct costs. For example, the direct costs of caries treatment in Germany was 20.2 billion, CVD 15.4 billion DM, diabetes 2.3 billion DM" (citing an 1993 paper). It would be nice to have up-to-date figures for the direct cost of caries -- to give the reader the idea of the big pot of money that is worth reducing, even by a small amount. The "Caries is the most expensive human disease in terms of direct costs.", if justified, is certainly eye catching enough to appear in the lead. Colin°^Talk 20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks again. I installed a change, both to Goal and to the lead, that mentions that caries is the most expensive disease and cites Sheiham. Eubulides (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I've finished re-reading this and it is excellent. Per previous FAC: readable, comprehensive and sticks closely to high quality sources. A good set of appropriate pics too. Colin°^Talk 12:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Support Shortly after this article was not promoted, I said that I'd wished I'd voted support. It is much better than probably most featured articles, and Eubulides has done a pretty good job of presenting both sides, although it's taken some nudging. He also has a tendency to repeat things word for word if they've been "published", particularly in a "review", regardless of the supporting data presented. I was reading the lead and I looked closer at the statement in the lead: "Almost all major public health and dental organizations support water fluoridation, or consider it safe", sourced to Armfield 2007. Armfield cites the American Dental Association's Fluoridation Facts 2005 to support this statement. The ADA's statement on this can be found on page 6, with a further list on page 69. These organizations are almost exclusively Anglo, with the exception of the Anglo-dominated World Health Organization. European and Asian safety organizations are not mentioned. And their absence makes it "almost"? It's not surprising that countries which practice fluoridation officially support it. But what do the academics say? In fact, the most in-depth review of the topic, the York review (which served as the basis for the later more surface-level NHMRC review of reviews) concluded that research on adverse effects was mostly of low-quality, which is in the lead. Anyway, the ADA's statement, channeled through Armfield, seems dubious, especially given letters which fluoridation opponents have received from European and Asian organizations [104], which indicate that they're more in agreement with York that the safety hasn't been conclusively established. Armfield's statement on health organizations is not as dubious as some of Armfield's other statements, like the one which directly precedes his public health org. statement: "Statements regarding the scientific controversy surrounding water fluoridation are generally regarded as artefacts of antifluoridationist activity, with actual scientific debate over water fluoridation being resolved decades ago", sourced, if you can believe it, to a 1978 Consumer Reports article. Fortunately, that's not in the article. Armfield's statement contrasts interestingly with a statement from one of the most prominent toxicologists alive today, John W. Doull, who chaired the 2006 NRC report on high natural fluoride. Doull told a Sci. American journalist [105]: "when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that's why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began. In the face of ignorance, controversy is rampant". There's also the interesting statement from Burt & Tomar that fluoridation is more justified in the U.S. than Europe because of socioeconomics; unlike Armfield and the ADA's statements, this bold statement is entirely unsupported by any citations or data. However, because it's in a "review", it apparently passes muster to be included in the lead. I'll admit it's plausible. II | (t - c) 06:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up Armfield's hyperbole; I reworded the article to remove it, citing Pizzo et al. (a more skeptical source) instead. Burt & Tomar's statement about socioeconomics is indeed plausible; also, Burt and Tomar are recognized experts in the field and we have no reliable sources disputing their statement. If any other points need clearing up to get your support this time around, please let me know. Eubulides (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Using Armfield 2007 to support the "opposition to it has been based on ethical, legal, safety, and efficacy grounds" clause seems a bit inflammatory and unfair, but I suppose it's balanced by the Cheng et al's BMJ article. II | (t - c) 21:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

II's comments seem verging on WP:SYNTH there. I'd have a minor gripe about U.S. bias in the article, , but the pros and cons of fluoridation are presented admirably. Physchim62 (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing obviously implausible and poorly-supported statements is just an exercise of good editorial judgment. II | (t - c) 21:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - In my view the article satisfied the criteria at the last FAC; it surpasses them now. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Image review: images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. No issues. Jappalang (talk) 03:23, 2 June 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 22:24, 6 June 2009 [106].

---

Ngo Dinh Diem presidential visit to Australia

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Article about the first president of South Vietnam visiting Australia in 1957. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I preformed a bit of minor cleanup on the article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Nice article. I always enjoy reading your submissions, as this area of the world was oft-neglected in the history classes I had. Not far from supporting, but a few fixes are needed:
  • "Like his American trip ..." Something about this phrase doesn't sit right. Consider "As with his American trip", perhaps?
  • "This was helped by the fact that his elder brother ..." The ambiguous "this" needs clarification. "This effort was helped"?
  • "He refused to hold the national elections and asserted that Ho would rig the ballots in the north" I assume you're referring to Ho Chi Minh, but it bears repeating since we've not read the name in a while. This also raises a question that Western readers might have.. why is Ngo Dinh Diem referred to in short form as "Diem", but Ho Chi Minh referred to as "Ho"?
  • "Diem arrived in the capital Canberra on 2 September" I've lost track of the year by now, so please restate.
  • "where large crowds cheered the Diem’s arrival" Extra "the"?
  • "This occurred in the 1950s during the McCarthyism scares" Another ambiguous "this".
  • Tucker appears in the Notes but not References.

--Laser brain (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Done as of one hour after this post YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Note I passed this article for GA) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

images Australia has quite liberal copyright laws, government copyright expires after 50 years, are there no official photos? Fasach Nua (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The liberal law only applies up to 1955 pictures expiring in 2005. Since the new FTA, it is the same rotten one like all the other countries, so 1957 pictures might have to wait another 50 years. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support, not finding any other issues. --Laser brain (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments: Great read and an interesting article. I really didn't find much to complain about, but just a few incredibly minor points:

• You could link 17th parallel to 17th parallel north.
• He had visited the US in May as well as other anti-communist countries in the Asia Pacific region such as Thailand and South Korea during the year. What time of the year did he visit the latter two countries?
• Doc Evatt, the leader of the opposition Australian Labor Party chimed in, proclaiming that peace, stability and democracy had been achieved in South Vietnam. Maybe joined instead of chimed.
• There's a minor overlink in the Media reception and support section to 1955 State of Vietnam referendum (the link is repeated from earlier). It's up to you, but the second link may not be needed.

Fixed the four preceding parts.

• Surely support and praise for Diem wasn't unanimous. Were there any (attempted) protests from local Vietnamese people/Communist groups? It surprises me that he could be feted so universally.

I presume you mean Australia. At the time Vietnamese settlement in Australia was negligible and only South Vietnamese students were allowed or came to anti-communist countries like Australia, so they were sent by Diem and wouldn't oppose him (VN has never been democratic so non-dissent at the government is expected). So I changed it to SV students. I also changed it to mainstream media. I suppose that the newsletter of the Communist Party of Australia must have condemned him but less than 0.5% of people support the CPA so it is nn. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Once these problems are fixed/answered I'll be happy to support. Apterygial 04:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. My issues are dealt with. Like Laser brain, an area neglected in my history classes (considering I went to school in Australia that's odd), so good to read about it. Great article. Apterygial 10:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Support with a minor question. I'm not sure if it is really relevant in this article, but I wondered a bit how other world leaders have been received in Australia after this - did the response approach that of Diem's visit, or was his special because it was essentially the first? Have other Vietnamese heads of state visited Australia? Karanacs (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I added section on aftermath about Vietnam and Australa. In those days state visits were a big deal and lots of people came to tickertape parades for all of them, but with the social standards changing in 1960s, people were more willing to protest. When LBJ came there were a lot of people cheering and a few atni-war rioters etc as well. When GWB came in 2003 not many people showed much interest except protesters. When Hu Jintao came a few days later only some PRC people came along to wave flags frenetically YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks great to me. Karanacs (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, comprehensive and well referenced.--Grahame (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• "one of the highest imperial honours that can be bestowed on a non-British subject"—most readers (even Australians) won't get the gist, that Australians are themselves British subjects. Is it still the case, or does it need past tense?
• "overlooking his authoritarianism, election fraud and corruption"—category issue: election fraud is corruption. ("and other aspects/signs of his corruption").
• Clarify: "Diem had pursued policies in Vietnam favoring his co-religionists." ... "Diem's visit was a highmark in Australia–Vietnam relations."
• "Over time, Diem became unpopular with his foreign allies, who began to notice his autocratic style and religious bias." How can we tell that they simply "began to notice" rather than "who had not responded to his autocratic ...". Safer NPOV?
• Over time ... over time.
• "By the time of his assassination, he had little support in Vietnam."
• "after winning office, but after the Liberals were returned to power"—after after ("but on the return of the centre-right Liberal-National coalition to power in 1975,").

I hope the rest is better. It probably is, so perhaps just a run through by someone else? Tony (talk) 15:28, 5 June 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 22:24, 6 June 2009 [107].

---

USS West Bridge (ID-2888)

Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about a United States Navy cargo ship built during World War I that was torpedoed on its first voyage across the Atlantic in August 1918. The ship survived the attack (barely) and continued sailing until the mid 1960s. The article has passed a GA review and a Military History A-Class review. I offer my thanks in advance to those who take the time to review and comment on this nomination. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - File:USS West Bridge (ID-2888).jpg isn't a work of the US Government; it was taken by the ship's builder, J.F. Duthie & Company. Therefore, {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} doesn't apply. Is there any evidence the photo is in the public domain (i.e., published before 1923)? I believe (though may not be correct so a second opinion may be warranted) that copyright for "works for hire", under which this should fall, lasts for either 95 years from publication or, if unpublished, 125 years from the date of creation, whichever happens first. Since the photo was taken in 1918, the 125-year limit would be 2043. So unless proof can be found that this image is in the public domain, it needs to go. The other two photos look fine though. Parsecboy (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I will agree that it should not have been tagged with {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} since it seems to clearly not have been taken by the Navy. I'm not sure I buy the "work for hire" argument for this image, though. The caption on the image states, the photograph of the ship—built under government contract—was taken by "J.F. Duthie & Co., Seattle" on behalf of the "United States Shipping Board, E.F.C.". If it is a "work for hire", as you contend, the client would then be either the United States Shipping Board or its Emergency Fleet Corporation, both of which are units of the federal government, thus making the image in the public domain.
  • However, regardless of my lay-interpretation of the caption, the immediate source of this particular scan of the image is the Naval History & Heritage Command website (link) which states that the original came from the National Archives' Record Group 19-LCM. According the National Archives website, Record Goup 19-LCM is the series "Construction and Launching of Ships, compiled ca. 1930 - ca. 1955" (ARC ID: 512915), a part of Record Group 19: "Records of the Bureau of Ships, 1940 - 1966)" (ARC ID: 348). According to the website, the use restrictions for 19-LCM are listed as "unrestricted". (Can be verified by searching "512915" at http://research.archives.gov/search) — Bellhalla (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I guess that's fine then. I was just taking my understanding of the copyright laws and applying it to this photo. My reasoning was that since the photo was taken by an employee as J.F. Duthie & Co, as part of his or her official duties (i.e., his boss told him to take the picture), it qualifies as a "work for hire," and the business should legally retain the copyright, regardless of what they then did with the photo (except of course, if they released it to PD or it was published before 1923). Like I said, I'm no expert on copyright stuff, so I may be reading too much into this. Maybe it'd be best to leave it in for now until someone with more expertise can give us a better answer. Parsecboy (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comments
  • Some of the incomplete dates given make the article feel vague and make the chronology a bit difficult to follow. For example:
    1. In the last sentence of the Torpedo attack section - it should be made clear that "through 1 December" means 1 December 1919, given that the ship required seven months of repairs starting at the end of 1918. The lead is actually clearer on this than the main body of the article; giving the full date.
       • Corrected. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    2. The lead is again more informative as to the date of transfer of the ship to the USSR. The lead states May 1945 whereas the main article just says 1945.
       • This is an artifact from me removing information from one source I thought might not meet WP:RS. After researching it, I now believe the site does meet RS and will rework this section. Will post here when fixed in the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
         • Updated the body of the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The article is on a U.S. subject and uses U.S. sentence constructions but uses European day first date formatting.
    • As Parsecboy mentioned below, U.S. military articles often use the DMY date style; there are quite a few 'American' FAs that use this style. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Why are USMC, FESCO USSB and other abbreviations given in small caps? I can see that some of these are formatted using a template but there doesn't appear to be a requirement for this in the Manual of Style and it is inconsistent with other abbreviations - GRT, KW and DWT are not given in small caps.
    • An old American typesetting convention for small caps is to use them for acronyms or initialisms of four or more characters. You are right there is no requirement in the MOS for this, but, on the other hand, neither is there a prohibition. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You could link the NY Times article cited in ref 20 to this in the New Yorks archive.--DavidCane (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the link. I usually go back and find all of the free NYT links and add links. I must have missed that one. Now added. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason the date is in dd/mm/yyyy is because the US military uses that format, so the articles about the US military follow suit. Parsecboy (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support, concerns addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose for now, under 1b and MoS concerns, mainly. Bellhalla, you've spoiled us in the past with rich details of design and construction (remembering SS Kroonland now); is there really no more available? Details:
  • "After the ship was decommissioned from the Navy, she was restored to the name SS West Bridge" I don't follow. How was she restored to a name she already had?
    • What I had in mind was the fact that the original "SS" prefix was restored, but I agree that the wording was bad. I've reworded. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm at odds with the explanation above about the USSB/NOTS templates and small caps. It may be an old typesetting standard, but that is no reason to use it in an electronic medium. To make matters worse, you have other acronyms in the article that are in standard caps. Please, it's extremely ungainly.
    • Many other FAs I have written (including SS Kroonland you mentioned above) use the same style for acronyms or initialisms longer than three characters and it's never been an issue before. Too many capital letters in a row can dominate a line of text and unnecessarily draw attention to a word or phrase so styled; this is the underlying reason that typing in ALL CAPS on the Internet is considered to be shouting by most folks. As an extreme example of how all caps text can dominate a reader's attention, take a look at this extreme example. (Personally, I think a lot of what's in that example is overly jargony and not suited for a general-interest encyclopedia, but that's another issue.) — Bellhalla (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I still don't like it, mostly because of the contrast between the small caps acronyms and the standard caps acronyms. But, the issue clearly transcends this particular article. --Laser brain (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The Design and construction section is oddly sparse. It's dominated by measurements and metric conversions that give it a clunky look and make me want to run away. Comprehensiveness is an issue. Where is the information about the design process? Why and how was it designed? Who designed it? How was it built? Very little information is here; the section might as well be named "Measurements".
    • I've reworked the section to provide some information on the ordering of the ship and tried to rearrange so as not to be jut a rehash of the infobox stats. I haven't found any sources that talk about how the design was developed; in my experience, those sorts of details are not usually preserved for cargo ships (as opposed to warships or large passenger vessels, like Kroonland). — Bellhalla (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Prose looks good. Tony (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent work, but what happened to the Hawaiian-American ships? Are we done with those? Karanacs (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No, there are a few more of them… :) — Bellhalla (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. This is a clear, concise, and well-written article. It's understandable to someone with limited nautical knowledge, and the citations appear to be accurate and appropriate. I had a few comments and questions, but none detracted from my understanding of the subject. Good work! JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Is there some kind of wikilink that would work for laid up? I know what it means, but it might be a bit of jargon for ESL speakers.
• I personally don't think it's a big deal, but you might consider adding Croatia after Split in the lead. My FAC got dinged for not having country/province identifiers.
• When was the WWI armament removed? I'd suggest adding the WWII Soviet-added armament to the general characteristics section.
• Was any armament added by the USMC in WWII?
• I turned on links in that first conversion template for long tons, since I didn't know what that was.
• I'm not sure if things should be linked once in the lede, then again in the main body (West Coast of the United States, etc.)
• One of the torpedo hits was near the No. 3 hold ... how many holds did the ship have?
• You mention the survivors of the torpedo attack "situated themselves about ..."; were they in lifeboats or just adrift?
• I'd suggest a trans-wiki link to "founder" in reference to the piece about the Montanan's end.
• I assume this is the case, but is there some kind of nautical style that doesn't require "the" before the name of a ship?
• Should convoy names be hyphenated? The WWI has a hyphen, but the WWII one was not.

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 22:24, 6 June 2009 [108].

---

Robert Hues

Nominator(s): — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This article was previously nominated but not promoted because insufficient editors reviewed the article. All the concerns raised by editors who provided suggestions have been addressed. I am therefore renominating the article in the hope that it will receive more reviews this time. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Question, seeing as this is a biographical article, why is the main picture the title page of one of the subjects works, and not a picture of the person itself?--Otterathome (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: No portrait has been located yet, and since this is a 16th-century personage it seems rather unlikely that one will turn up. Perhaps there is a likeness in Christ Church Cathedral or in some other church? — JackLee, 18:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Image review (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert Hues/archive1). There are no new images at this time. Awadewit (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: It would be great if someone in Oxford could take a photograph of Hues' memorial brass in Christ Church Cathedral. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments I am leaning towards support, but I have some questions first:

• An anonymous 17th-century manuscript states that Hues circumnavigated the world with Cavendish between 1586 and 1588 "purposely for taking the true Latitude of places" - This is actually sourced to the manuscript - is this OR? Has anyone published this connection before?
  • Comment: It is the ODNB, which is referenced at the end of the paragraph (footnote 2). — JackLee, 18:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• he may have been the "NH" who wrote a brief account of the voyage that was published by Hakluyt in his 1589 work The Principall Navigations, Voiages, and Discoveries of the English Nation - This is sourced to the 1589 work itself - is this OR? Has anyone published this connection before?
  • Comment: Ditto. — JackLee, 18:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Could we get a translation of the Latin inscription in the "Later life" section?
  • Comment: I tried leaving a message at "la:Vicipaedia:Taberna" previously, but there were no takers. Have left another one. — JackLee, 18:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed: Some editors have provided assistance, so there is now a translation. Further tweaking by Latin-literate editors is welcome. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Is it necessary to list each and every printing of the Tractatus in this article?
  • Comment: Doesn't this shed interesting light on the popularity of the work in the 16th and 17th centuries? — JackLee, 18:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
    • As a scholar I love this listing, but I'm wondering about its appropriateness in a general encyclopedia. Awadewit (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
      • :-D Well, let's see whether any other reviewers have an opinion on this. — JackLee, 04:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Sure. Awadewit (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Why were the sources listed in the "Further reading" not used for the article?
  • Comment: Because I thought the existing references were sufficient. — JackLee, 18:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm asking since there are so few used - do the "Further reading" sources have more information? Awadewit (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure. I came across them while reading the references that were used in the article, and thought they would be useful if listed in the "Further reading" section. I'd have to look them up (if they are available where I live). — JackLee, 04:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Since there are so few sources used in the article, it seems like looking them up would be a good idea. Will you have a chance in the next week or so? Awadewit (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
          • I've checked the items in the "Further reading" list. Here in Singapore, I only have access to four of them: Notes and Queries, Renaissance Quarterly, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society and Atomism in England from Hariot to Newton. Notes and Queries is not useful for incorporating into the article, but Renaissance Quarterly (which I accessed through JSTOR) is, and I've already done so. I will have to access the other two in print. Other editors with access to the remaining items will have to help determine if they contain useful information. I hope this is not a deal-breaker. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
            • I am going to the library myself today and I'll see what I have access to. Thanks so much for doing this! Awadewit (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
              • See my notes at Talk:Robert Hues#Library trip. Awadewit (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
                • Have read chs. 2–4 of Atomism in England and added some information to the article. I also found a useful journal article online which clarifies the controversy over whether Harriot, Hues and Warner were Northumberland's "Three Magi". I think that's it for now. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for so carefully assembling this article! The details in the footnotes were exceptional. I really appreciated those. Awadewit (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for taking the time to review the article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I am now supporting this article. Awadewit (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note I've left a note for Laser brain since he reviewed this article last time it was up for FAC. Awadewit (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - engaging, well-written and particularly well-researched, in my view this important contribution satisfies the criteria. Graham Colm ^Talk 12:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• Leaning support, my comments:
  • The first paragraph of the lead doesn't feel... leadish, more like a laundry list of movements of the subject. There's a lot of repetitious structure (Hues did this, Hues did that) that might be contributing to it. As it stands, it doesn't make me want to read on. Try changing the syntax and slimming down to just the highlights.
  • "During the voyage, while in the South Atlantic Hues made astronomical observations, and also observed the variation of the compass there and at the Equator. " Not sure if that's grammatically incorrect, but I'll be damned if it isn't awkward-sounding.
  • Reading on there's a continuing appearance of some rather strange wording, such as "At the age of 18 years, in 1571, he entered"... generally it would be better to preface with the date, i.e. "In 1571, at the age of 18 years..." Another example, "Following Grey's death, in 1616".
  • "At Oxford, a servitor was an undergraduate student who worked as a servant for fellows of the University in exchange for free accommodation and some meals, and exemption from paying fees for lectures." This comes off as extraneous that breaks the nice flow you've got. It's certainly interesting info that's germane, but it's not really proper inline; perhaps consider making an annotations section for content like this?
  • "Hues returned to England with Davis in 1593. During the voyage, while in the South Atlantic he made astronomical observations of the Southern Cross and other stars of the Southern Hemisphere, and also observed the variation of the compass there and at the Equator.[14] After reaching home, Hues published his discoveries in the work..." More awkward placement. The "during the voyage" sentence should come before the mention of his return. Also, with the "unfortunately" and the death of Cavendish right before, it casts some doubt as to whether they actually completed the circumnavigation or not. Please clarify for us unknowledgeable folks. :)
  • "The book was written to explain the use of the terrestrial and celestial globes that had been made and published by Emery Molyneux in late 1592 or early 1593,[16] and apparently to encourage English sailors to use practical astronomical navigation,[2] although Lesley Cormack has observed that the fact the book was written in Latin suggests that it was aimed at scholarly readers on the Continent." scratch the "and" from "and apparently", makes it sound more joined, although the phrasing sounds like Molyneux published it to encourage the English, not Hues.
  • Some people or phrases that, in addition to their wikilink, should probably have some small explanation of what they are: rhumb lines, John Davis
  • "and were usually called the Earl of Northumberland's THREE MAGI" -> any reason for the small caps here, rather than quotes?
    • Comment: Thanks for taking time to review the article. Yes, the words were in small caps in the source. Am leaving for an overseas trip tomorrow – will try to look into some of your comments next week. — JackLee, 15:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Hues, who did not marry, died on 24 May 1632 in Stone House, St. Aldate's (opposite the Blue Boar in central Oxford),[35] which was the house of John Smith, M.A., the son of J. Smith, a cook at Christ Church.[14]" Could you cast aside some of these commas and make multiple straightforward sentences? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "At Oxford, a servitor was an undergraduate student..." What do you think about perhaps moving this into a footnote that would appear right after "servitor"?
  • "He gave advice to the dramatist and poet..." Perhaps "He would later give advice..." or "He would apply his knowledge of Greek..." and then "George Chapman for his _insert year_ English" just to make the timeline a bit clearer.
  • "According to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, there is unsubstantiated evidence" Well, ODNB articles list their sources, so this theory probably originated somewhere else, not the ODNB. :) Care to do a little more digging? (What evidence/why unsubstantiated?)
  • "an undated source " Could we be a bit more explicit here on what this means (either in text or as a footnote)?
  • "Unfortunately, Cavendish died " One of those words to avoid; in any case, deaths are always unfortunate. :) Perhaps be a bit clearer here instead ("Cavendish's death cut short the voyage" or similar...that is the case right?).
  • What's the reason for the format of "THREE MAGI"?
    • Comment: Thanks for taking time to review the article. The words were in small caps in the source. Am leaving for an overseas trip tomorrow – will try to look into some of your comments next week. — JackLee, 15:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "allied subjects " I'm unfamiliar with what this means.
  • I noticed that some of your sentences that are based on the ODNB article skirt a bit closely to the original wording. Please double check these and recast if necessary. This is probably the only thing that would prevent me from supporting.
  • I see now that I'm just echoing David on some of my points...great minds, etc., etc.? :)
  • Good work. BuddingJournalist 07:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support and comments A nice article, just a couple of quibbles
  • In the lead, there are a couple of sentences where beginning with the date makes it a bit clunky. To me at least, Between 1586 and 1588, Hues travelled with Thomas Cavendish on a circumnavigation of the globe, reads better as Hues travelled with Thomas Cavendish on a circumnavigation of the globe between 1586 and 1588 I note that this contradicts an earlier comment
  • I also don’t like the list of printing dates in the lead.
  • There is some unnecessary linking, Does "£" really need a link, and I wouldn’t have linked Oxford either
  • I note your reason for the THREE MAGI capitalisation, but I'm not fully convinced that the original style should be kept

None of the above are big deals jimfbleak (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I am currently in Beijing, and have realized it may be difficult for me to have regular Internet access, so I will look into all the above points when I return to Singapore by Saturday, 6 June. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Prose looks ok. Some of the paragraphs are dauntiingly large. Tony (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Who did the translation from Latin in "Later life"? Can it be sourced? "... all kinds of ... "  ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I did, based on information provided by another editor (see the talk page). Thus, it can't be sourced at the moment. By the way, I'm back from Beijing, so I will try and work on the article over the weekend. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:24, 5 June 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 22:24, 6 June 2009 [109].

---

U.S. Route 41 in Michigan

Nominator(s): Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel the last nomination's remaining issues have been corrected. The last nomination discussion closed with a single oppose factored over sources, including using two DOT press releases as sources. The section on the Interstate Bridge has been expanded with the newspaper clippings obtained as the last FAC was closed, removing the press release source. The other press release is still used as a source only to verify the date of transfer of the now former business loop in Marquette from state to city jurisdiction. The reference desk at the Peter White Public Library in Marquette was unable to find any articles in the Marquette Mining Journal that cover the transfer at the time it was completed, leaving the MDOT press release as the only acceptible source giving the date of transfer. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I'm not at school anymore; otherwise I would help you out with this article. Apologies there...
  • "US 41 was an original US Highway first designated in 1926. It replaced the original M-15 designation of the highway, which ran from Menominee to Marquette, Houghton and ended in Copper Harbor."
    • Copyedit needed here. "was an original" -> "first designated" doesn't sound right, and should "from Menominee to Marquette, Houghton and ended in Copper Harbor" be "from Menominee through Marquette to Houghton and ending in Copper Harbor"?
  • "Realignments and construction projects have expanded the highway to four lanes in Delta and Marquette counties. These changes also created three business loops off the main highway."
    • Try "Realignments and construction projects have expanded the highway to four lanes in Delta and Marquette counties and have also created three business loops off the main highway."
  • "The 279.167-mile (449.276 km) highway comprises mostly two lanes, undivided except for the sections that are concurrent with US 2 near Escanaba and M-28 near Marquette."
    • Try "The 279.167-mile (449.276 km) highway is comprised of two lanes for much of its length; it is undivided except for sections that are concurrent with US 2 near Escanaba and M-28 near Marquette."
  • "US 41/M-28 is a four-lane expressway along the "Marquette Bypass", and segments of the highway in Delta and Marquette counties have four lanes.[5]"
    • What about the concurrent US 2 section?
  • "The highway meets the southern terminus of M-35 before following 10th Avenue north out of town east of the Menominee–Marinette Airport and west of the Bay of Green Bay.[7]"
    • Would "intersects" be preferable to "meets"?
  • "The highway meets the southern terminus of M-35 before following 10th Avenue north out of town east of the Menominee–Marinette Airport and west of the Bay of Green Bay.[7]"
    • Confusing to me. "North", "east", and "west" all in quick succession...
  • "The highway runs north through rolling farmland in the central Menominee County communities of Wallace, Stephenson, and the twin communities of Carney and Nadeau."
    • "rolling farmland"? What is that? Also, I may know what you mean by Carney and Nadeau being twin communities, but not many others will...is there something you could link that too?
  • "M-94 follows US 41 for approximately 2 miles (3 km) near Skandia, before it turns westward to provide access to K. I. Saywer, a former air force base. "
    • Does this means that M-94 runs to Sawyer and ends?
  • "US 41 turns north solo from Covington, crossing the Sturgeon River, on the way to the historic sawmill town of Alberta.[5]"
    • "Solo" seems colloquial...
  • "Continuing north from Alberta, US 41 enters the town of L'Anse on the east side of Keweenaw Bay, rounding the bay to the town of Baraga." [...] "North of Hancock, US 41 passes the Houghton County Memorial Airport before reaching the towns of Calumet and Laurium."
    • L'Anse, Calumet and Laurium are villages, no? At the least, Calumet is—it might have been huge at one point in time (wasn't it considered as a possible place for the state capital once?), but it is now a very small place.
  • "The first highway designated along the path of the modern US 41 was M-15, in use as far back as 1919.[20]"
    • Try "The first highway designated along the path of the modern US 41 was M-15; the designation was used from 1919[20]–November 11, 1926, when the U.S. Highway System was announced.[2] This resulted in US 41's routing over the alignment of M-15.[21]"
  • "Around 1930, the northern terminus of US 41 was extended easterly from Copper Harbor to Fort Wilkins State Park.[22]"
    • Is "easterly" even a word...?
  • ""Menominee" in the local Menominee language means "wild rice"."
    • What in the world does this have to do with the paragraph it is in, let alone this article...?
    • Oh, got it now. Is there any way to combine the above with the preceding sentence to keep everything in one thought?
  • "MDOT has listed it as "one of Michigan's most important vehicular bridges"."
    • Why? Because of its engineering and architectural significance?
  • "Another abandoned bridge is now privately owned and in use at the mouth of the Backwater Creek on the Keweenaw Bay near L'Anse. The bridge was constructed in 1918 for $4,536 (equivalent to $64,912 in 2009).[34][62] It is an 80-foot (24 m) Warren truss design now situated on private property.[62] This abandoned bridge was listed on the National Register in 1999."
    • "privately owned" and "private property" seems redundant. Also, a ref for the last sentence?
  • "As of 2009, MDOT has not included the bridge on its inventory online."
    • Not liking the time aspect here.
  • "Signage for the Veterans Memorial Highway just west of the Ishpeming city line"
    • O_o "signage" is actually a word? I thought my Dad made it up :P
  • Hope these comments help. Cheers! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• Replies to Ed17:
  • I incorporated some of your copy editing suggestions, but not all of them. Some are personal preference/stylistic reasons, and either the existing text or your suggestions were equally appropriate, and I just preferred the current text.
  • "US 41/M-28 is a four-lane expressway along the "Marquette Bypass", and segments of the highway in Delta and Marquette counties have four lanes.[5]" — The concurrent US 2 section is in Delta County. The only reason M-28 is specifically mentioned in that sentence is that the specific section of US 41 mentioned as an expressway is US 41/M-28.
  • M-94 does run to K.I. Sawyer and ends at M-553 on the other side. I'm lost as to what you're questioning there.
  • Calumet, Laurium and L'Anse may hold the legal status as a village, but they are still towns in the generic sense. Mackinaw City is also a village, but Mackinac Island is legally a city.
  • Yes, "easterly" and "signage" are words.
  • Private property (as in land) and private ownership of a (highway) bridge aren't necessarily going to follow. MDOT or the county road commission could own the bridge even if a private landowner owns the surrounding property.
  • As for the time aspect of the "As of 2009, MDOT..." what would you suggest? The usage of the {{As of}} template will aid in updating the article, instead of just saying "currently"... I'm not sure what to suggest to change this situation since MDOT could always list the bridge in their inventory, but it is rather odd that they haven't yet.
  • Thanks for the suggestions. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Alright to all of those. I'll check back in a few more days and will probably support. As to the date: I had no idea that template existed, so never mind. Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure, it looks like references 60, 45, 46, 47 have extra "p"s (there are two when there should be one because the page is singular) and reference 9 uses "Page" when "p." should be used for consistency with the rest of the article. I didn't fix these because I'm not sure about them, but it would be appreciated if you could take a look. Mm40 (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• The "A1+" implies that more than one page was used (A1 and after), so I'm fairly certain that it's correct. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That's correct. The articles are continued on a discontinuous page, either A3 or A5, hence the "+" signs. As for reference 9, I've asked that the {{cite map}} template used be updated for consistency. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
    • {{cite map}} was updated to use the p. convention. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • 1.1 - The highway meets the southern terminus of M-35 before following 10th Avenue north out of town between the Menominee–Marinette Airport and the Bay of Green Bay.[7] The highway runs north through rolling farmland in the central Menominee County communities of Wallace, Stephenson, and the twin communities of Carney and Nadeau. - change
  • At Powers, US 41 joins with US 2. - a bit choppy
  • 1.3 - US 41 enters Houghton along Townsend Drive on the campus of MTU then passes along College Avenue into downtown. - seems like a run-on.
  • Sheldon Ave - expand.
  • The road way continues east -> The roadway continues east
  • Section 3 has a sentence with 5 citations in a row. Is there any way to break it up?
  • 3.1 - In the last paragraph, some of the sentences are a bit choppy.
  • Same for the first paragraph of 3.2.
  • These sculptures were added in addition to the other decorative elements added to the new bridge including the railings and light poles. .[47] - looks like an extra space?
  • I'm guessing that this is the case, but... are there no mileposts for some items in the junction table?

This article is well-written and comprehensive; just a few changes are needed before I can support it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I made some copy edits. The five citations in a row may look out of place, but the source used only has the NRHP sites listed by county, and the entire sentence references places in 5 counties. The only source I have for mileposting information is the Control Section/Physical Reference Atlas, which does not have control points at all of the junctions listed. I hope this clears up things for you, let me know if you have any further suggestions. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support issues addressed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "historic character by various organizations." I think "significance" would be a better word than "character".
• "the bridge continues to carry traffic today although" Redundant through use of present tense.
• "Today, drivers cannot use the " Another unnecessary usage of "[t]oday." Audit througout for this dated word.
• "Sheridan Road was created in the early 20th century connecting Chicago with Fort Sheridan north of the city." "early 20th"-->early-20th; I think a semicolon is needed to improve the flow: "Sheridan Road was created in the early-20th century; it connected [connects?] Chicago with Fort Sheridan north of the city."
• "Historically, there have been three business loops for US 41. "
• "locally-controlled roadway" -ly adverbs don't need hyphens. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Replies to Dabomb87

• I've made some copy edits to remove the word "today" from the text.
• A semicolon would be wrong in that context as semicolons are used in place of conjunctions. I don't think a comma is even appropriate there, but I"m not sure.
• As for the hyphen suggestions, I respectfully disagree. In the first example, early modifies the term "20th century" but "20th century" is an object, not a compound adjective. In the second example, "locally" and "controlled" should be hyphenated. "Locally-controlled" is one concept that is modifying the word "roadway". Without the word "locally", the word "controlled" takes on a totally different meaning in regards to a roadway.
  • May I intercede here? MoS recommends no hyphen after "-ly" adverbs, since the role of the item in qualifying an upcoming verb is crystal clear. It is a generally accepted rule. Tony (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Thank you for the suggestions. I've implemented the ones that make sense in the article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I will let the "century" hyphen issue go, but "locally controlled" does not need a hyphen as an -ly adverb implies that it is linked to the verb it is modifying. See MOS. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I still disagree, but the point is moot with a copy edit to reword the sentence slightly. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support, great work. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a and 1c. It's not a bad start, but lots of work is needed. The prose is rough in places, as delineated below, and more. The History section is woefully researched—most of it is sourced to maps, which only provide a aesthetic history. Some time is needed in a library to sift through local and regional newspapers to discover the stories and issues that surrounded the highway's history.
  • Is any information available on Priscilla Press? They don't appear to even have a web site. How do we know it's not a vanity publisher? I have doubts about the suitability of Barnett as a reliable source.
  • You define and use "UP" once in the lead and once more in the body, but use "Upper Peninsula" everywhere else. Suggest getting rid of the overly-colloquial former.
  • "US 41 serves as a major conduit for Michigan traffic" What is the definition of "major conduit"? Most often used? Heavily used?
  • "Most of the highway is listed on the National Highway System." Why not all? The mention later goes into no more detail and is of no help.
  • "The highway is known for a number of historic bridges including a lift bridge, the northernmost bridge in the state and a bridge called "one of Michigan's most important vehicular bridges" by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT)." Serial comma?
  • "Trunkline" is jargon.. wikilink or explain.
  • "The current bridge was last used for railroad traffic in the summer of 1982, when the Soo Line rail lines in Houghton and northward were abandoned starting in 1976." I don't follow how it was used for railroad traffic in 1982 when the lines were abandoned in 1976.
  • No need to specify acronyms you never use again (WisDOT).
  • "This reconstruction was completed ahead of schedule, with the span reopening on November 22, 2005." Revise to eliminate the noun plus -ing construction and "with" connector.
  • "These sculptures were added in addition to the other decorative elements added to the new bridge including the railings and light poles." Revise to get rid of some of the "added ... addition ... added"
  • "Five other bridges are listed on the NRHP and the Michigan SRHS addition to any inclusion on the MDOT Historic Bridge Inventory." I couldn't follow this. Addition to any inclusion?
  • "As of 2009[update], MDOT has not included the bridge on its inventory online." What is the significance of this statement?
  • "The bridge has remained in service since construction essentially unaltered." Oddly phrased, suggests the "construction" essentially unaltered... something.
  • "... and only the Jacobetti and Veterans memorial highways still have signage posted on the side of the road." Without the context you will doubtless provide later, this means nothing to the read. There are other problems with this sentence. "Memorial Highways" should surely be capitalized since it is part of the title; "at the side of the road"?
  • Fix ellipses in quotations per WP:ELLIPSES.
  • "MDOT unveiled plans on March 31, 2009, to rebuild" What is the comma doing?
  • "roundabout retaining the current right-turn lanes from the current intersection layout." Spot the redundant word.
  • "MDOT has stated that many of the concerns expressed are due to misconceptions of the design and will not come to pass." The concerns won't come to pass? They already have. Or do you mean that the perceived problems won't come to pass?
  • "Historically, there have been three business loops for US 41." This is redundant. If you use the past tense, you don't need to say "historically". I see another reviewer has already brought this up.

--Laser brain (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, I gave the article a copy edit per your suggestions, but I have a few comments.
  • LeRoy Barnett, PhD is the retired Head of Reference for the Michigan State Archives according to the jacket of the book. The forward to his book was written by Gloria Jeff, then director of MDOT, and signed as "Gloria Jeff, Director, Michigan Department of Transportation". The book also credits Michigan History magazine, the Michigan Bureau of History, the Grand Rapids Public Library, the Newberry Library, Wayne State University, the Burton Historical Collections, MDOT, "various county road commissions", the State Archives, the MDOT Photo Lab and the LIbrary of Michigan as sources. According to [110] the company has published other Michigan historical books, and the Michigan Department of History, Arts and Libraries recommends another of their books at [111] as further reading on the history of Michigan.
  • There is no source given as to why MDOT didn't list all of the highway on the NHS, just that only part of it was.
  • State-maintained highways in Michigan are legally called "state trunkline highways". The first usage of the term in the lead is already wikilnked to the article on the system.
  • I didn't capitalize "memorial highways" in that sentence for the same reason I don't capitalize "counties" at the end of a list of county names:. ie. Marquette and Baraga counties vs. Marquette County. Likewise Jacobetti and Veterans memorial highways vs. Jacobetti Memorial Highway.
  • The oppose is stated as under criteria 1a and 1c, and I would like some clarification. I can understand if you don't like my writing style; you've opposed over that before on a different article. The solution is for us to partner to polish prose collaboratively. You've stated an opposition to the quality of the research, but not the comprehensiveness of the article (criterion 1b). The article covers the major high points of the history of the roadway: the historic bridges built to carry it, the memorial designations applied to it and the physical changes made to the pavement. There are other changes made to the highway, which are mostly minor realignments to straighten curves in the routing. These minor changes were left out, even though they too could be added and documented on the maps of the time. The changes given are easily referenced to the various maps I own. What would be gained by researching old newspapers except to change the source of the information from a map to a news story? As I stated in the renomination above, the final transfer of the business loop through Marquette from state to city jurisdiction didn't even warrant a news story, meaning the best source for the date of the change remains an MDOT press release. The previous FAC discussion approved of the use of maps from the agency that owns the road as one of the best sources to document the changes made to the road.

Any further comments are appreciated. Please feel free to copy edit the article directly at any time. Another option would be to contact me on my talk page to collaborate on any copy editing. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, an additional comment in explanation. Today I was informed of a "Memorandum of Understanding" from May 13, 2009 which extended M-30 south 4.83 miles along Meridian Road in Midland County. Legally, this section of road is now a state highway, and the transfer wasn't covered in any news source according to Google. This means until MDOT updates the map or posts signage in the field which can be photographed, only the MOU is a source for the transfer, no news stories, no articles, nothing. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for responding. I actually listed all the prose problems I found, so there should be no need for me to edit the article or make additional suggestions unless future edits degrade the article. Your writing style is fine, but not perfect, nor is any of ours. As to my 1c objection, I feel I was clear about what I am looking for. I don't have a problem with your using maps for the aesthetic history of the road. However, there are always other news stories about budget, politics, historic events, etc. You will need to spend some time with a library database that indexes newspapers, or in a library that keeps physical or electronic archives of newspapers. Just for a relevant comparison, Zilwaukee Bridge could have a History section sourced to maps, but it would be boring and covering only aesthetics. However, if you dig into the Saginaw News and other area papers, you'll find tons of great stories about the construction and history of the bridge, the controversies, how we all thought it was going to sink into the river, etc. --Laser brain (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. The construction of a major bridge always gets a significant amount of coverage in the media. Realignments of highway rarely do, unless it involves a freeway bypass of a community, and even in that case it is hit-or-miss. As an addendum, it's much easier to research a static structure situated in one location than it is to research a 270-plus mile highway that has a routing that can change and has changed many times. Once a bridge is completed, there's not much more to say about it. However, even after a road is completed (or initially assigned would probably be the equivalent here), its routing can and does change often, especially one this long. – TMF 01:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the realignment. That has been mentioned here but I'm not focused on that issue, nor have I even mentioned it. I'm talking about the entire history of the road. The proper research must be done, and it won't be accomplished via Google searches. I'm inflexible on this matter. --Laser brain (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm confused here. The history of the road is covered in the article. The realignments since the 1926 designation of the highway have been covered. The historic bridges built for the highway are covered, dating back to 1914 with the construction of Trunk Line Bridge No. 1. The Memorial Highway designations for the road are covered back to 1917. The previous designation for the roadway is covered. Ok, so the part that under a draft of the original highway plan M-15 would have been part of 3 US highways and not one isn't in there, but that's trivial. (Menominee to Powers would have been US 41, Powers to Rapid River would have been just US 2, Rapid River to Covington would have been US 102 and Covington to Copper Harbor would have been US 41.) I can't include the first highway centerline story, since that section of M-15 was used for M-28, not US 41 between Negaunee and Marquette. I have more resources than just Google at my disposal here, historical books from MDOT, old maps, etc. What sorts of things do you want added to the article? Give me some hypothetical examples so I have an idea what it is you want. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, as I acknowledged, you have covered the aesthetic history of the road. However, the research is necessary to find the human stories. Examples are decisions about routing, funding, conflicts and controversies, etc. Did two counties argue about where the road should go? Did a city lobby to have it go through without success? That kind of thing you will not find on maps and in MDOT reports. --Laser brain (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just e-mailed the public libraries' reference desks for Menominee, Marquette, Escanaba, Grand Rapids, the Kent District Library and the Library of Michigan in Lansing. (I currently live in the Grand Rapids Metro area, not in the Marquette area that was home to me.) I would ask that if this research request is the only outstanding issue that the FAC be held open pending word back from the libraries in question. There's no guarantee that the newspapers of the time even covered the issues you describe, let alone that the issues even existed along any or all of the highway. I've already done database searches online through the KDL and turned up very little. What I have found is engineering studies from MDOT connected to construction projects, but no news coverage in the various databases. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I've been in contact with research librarians at the Grand Rapids Public Library's History and Special Collections section. They ironically have forwarded my research request to Dr. Barnett for assistance who has conveyed to me via e-mail that the article is well written as it stands. He's pointed me to the Marquette County Historical Society Library and the Copper Country Archives at Michigan Technological University for further investigation. The GRHSC librarian expressed that the request for the information wanted by LaserBrain has "stumped" the staff. Once again I maintain that the information that's being requested may not even exist as there is no guarantee that an 82 year old highway has had any controversies unlike a major bridge project with an unfortunate accident during construction. In total now, I have been in touch with librarians from four libraries that have yet to find anything remotely close to what's being requested. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• I would recommend that this be treated as an unactionable oppose. It seems that if the information just cannot be found, this FAC shouldn't be failed on the grounds that it does not have information that cannot be found. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I appreciate your explanation of the Barnett reference. I'm not sure you're right about the memorial highways thing, because you are still making it part of the proper noun. If I had been to Yankee Stadium and Shea Stadium, I wouldn't say, "I've been to Yankee and Shea stadiums" would I? I would capitalize Stadiums. --Laser brain (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • As discussed before on another forum, both "Yankee and Shea stadiums" as well as "Yankee and Shea Stadiums" (shouldn't that be stadia anyway?) would be correct. You wouldn't say ""Presidents Bush and Clinton", you'd say "presidents Bush and Clinton". I've kept consistent here since I used "Marquette and Baraga counties" in the article, why switch conventions to "Jacobetti and Veterans Hemorial Highways" toward the end of the article? Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I would say "Presidents Bush and Clinton". In this use, it is part of the proper noun. "Drs. Smith and Johnson work at this hospital", etc. --Laser brain (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• As I discussed with an English-teacher friend of mine, we both could be right and we both could be wrong. Unlike the French Language, there is no academy that standardizes rules in the English Language. In the spirit of collaboration, I will change to your preferred usage in this sentence. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - This article has the best prose and layout of any FA, GA or A-Class article I have ever seen. The article is complete, neat, well-organized and understandable; all references are in line and the works cited were cited as supposed to. –CG 17:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on an image issue:

• File:US 41 M-28 Marquette roundabout.jpg: where did Michigan Department of Transportation say they released this image into the public domain?
  • OTRS awaits from 1 June 2009. Jappalang (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• File:Interstate Bridge MWMM.JPG: not a biggie, this image is awaiting OTRS (since 18 May 2009)
  • The OTRS is now there, but what is the license? Jappalang (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The first concern is more crucial. Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've forwared MDOT's release into OTRS, and marked the photo accordingly. Imzadi1979 (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've added the proper OTRS link to the image in question. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• The Interstate Bridge photo is licensed as CC-BY-SA 1.0 confirmed by OTRS. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Is the 1.0 correct? I am a bit amazed that with us at the 3.0 stage, a request or permission would be given for 1.0 at this stage... Jappalang (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• That is what the OTRS editor tagged it as. If I was picking, it would be at 3.0.... it probably should be updated. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for going MIA... in the OTRS thread, the copyright holder specified CC-by-SA but did not name a specific CbSA license version. I put down the default until I could get back to the FAC. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake, I misread the thread and didn't see how the copyright holder had given permission for the implementation of the license. Imzadi, could you please change the license to what you want (assuming 3.0) and then leave a note explaining that deference was given to you by the copyright holder just so it's clear to non-OTRS people what went down? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I updated the licensing information in accordance with the OTRS ticket and noted that on the image's page. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The other image's OTRS thing has been squared away, I believe. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That is it, no more image issues. Article is using photos that are verifiably in public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Support if Laser brain does. until the writing is fixed up throughout. Here are examples just from the lead!

• "Along its 279.167-mile (449.276 km) route in the state, US 41 serves as a major conduit for Michigan traffic." Can we make it neater? "The 279 miles (449.276 km) of the US 41 that lie within Michigan serve as a major conduit." I don't think I've removed too much: where else would the conduit be, and for what else but traffic? Is the plural OK?
• "Along the route, US 41 passes through farm fields, forest lands, and along the Lake Superior shoreline." Three words are redundant. And there are really two, not three items in this list (through ... and ..., and along ...).
• Redundant "also" ("and" does the job perfectly well, but needs a preceding comma, since there are other ands in the vicinity).
• Included ... include ... including. bridges ... bridge ... bridge ... bridge.
• "called" -->"referred to as".
• "Seven different memorial ..."—Do we need "different"? Another "including. (We can cope with, say, two in a para, but not four; what about "..., one of them named for ..."?
• As much as I detest the dots, why are we free of these blessed fly spots (US, U.S.) half the time and not throughout, including the title? I think the WikiProject would object, actually, but make it consistent, please.
• "US 41 was an original US Highway first designated in 1926."—Hard to comprehend; is an "original" highway of special status? In any case, it doesn't go well with "first".
• Another idle "also". Please audit every "also" in the text; remove 95%. Tony (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made some copy edits throughout the text of the article. As for the US/U.S. situation, I standardized on US. The article's title won't be changed since between the 49 DOTs that are responsible for maintaining sections of the United States Numbered Highway System, US #, U.S. # and US-# conventions are in place. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials uses U.S. Route and U.S. Highway in their internal documentation for the full name of the highways in question, which is why the "fly spots" were in use the way they were previously. Feel free to follow up with further suggestions or make copy edits to the article yourself. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments — in regards to requests by LaserBrain above for research into more historical information on the highway, I have been in contact with librarians from the Spies Public Library in Menominee, the Peter White Public Library in Marquette, the Grand Rapids Public Library, the Kent District Library and the Library of Michigan in Lansing. I'm awaiting replies yet from the Copper Country Archives at Michigan Technological University in Houghton and the Marquette County Historical Society's library. I have e-mailed the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (who are in charge of the US Highway numbers and routings). I've been in personal correspondence with LeRoy Barnett, author of one of the books cited in the article and retired head of reference with the State Archives. He's personally mailed me a copy of an article on the Military Road that he wrote that will allow me to add some 19th century history to the article for the section of the highway north of Houghton. With the exception of his article, nothing has been turned up that would satisfy LaserBrain's request. I submit that his oppose on criterion 1c is now unactionable because the article has been thoroughly researched, and what he desires does not exist. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate your dedication to looking into the issue! I've stricken my 1c opposition above—I'm satisfied all that could be done to research the history has been done. As for the 1a, I'll have to evaluate the text again especially in light of Tony's recent opposition. --Laser brain (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I second that. It really sets a great standard for US highway articles, which have often been little more than travelogues; Route 41 does offer rich pickings for history and research. I've fixed a few things in the history section. See the BBC's recent doco series The_Ascent_of_Money#Ep._2:_Human_Bondage for a fascinating account of how the Rothschild family's sitting on the sidelines and the confederate government's reliance on "cotton" bonds were critical ingredients in the outcome of the Civil War, as well as the attitude of the British government. (There was no "United Kindgom" by name, then, was there?). That "formatprice/inflation/current year" template ... I'd be happier if it said "roughly equivalent to"; or better still, "~ $x in 2009", but I suppose the tilde is a no-no. And is it worth translating 2004 dollars into 2009?The cost and price structures were so different in those days. See the recent discussion concerning the creation of a new, similar template (can't find link). I do hope you continue to prepare nominations. "Seven bridges along the US 41 corridor have been recognized for their historic character by various organizations." Since you say precisely which organisations, why not "have been officially reconized." "Various" is such a non-word. 4 ft = 1 m? Rough guess, 1.3 m? Is that the convert template at work again!? "Now the middle section is left in an intermediate position for the warmer nine months of the year; in this position, so that vehicle traffic can use use the lower deck of the lift span and pleasure craft can pass under the bridge." "Now" is when? It will date. "As of ?". Tony (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I will update some things later with your suggestions. (I'm just home on my lunch hour at the moment.) As for the UK vs. Great Britain mention, the Act of Union in 1801 merged Great Britain and Ireland to form the United Kingdom, so yes, during the American Civil War, it was the UK already. Either wording is really fine by me though. Thanks for the reviews. Hopefully LaserBrain comes back soon so we can start to wrap this nomination up. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Additional comments I dove into another random section (Business loops) and spotted more problems. I don't think it's far off at this point, but I'm not ready to support because I'm still seeing things.
  • "There have been three business loops for US 41. These included the loops in Ishpeming–Negaunee, Marquette and Baraga." Why "included" when you've named all three? Normally, "including/ed" is used when you are giving representatives of a long list: "I bought five flavors of ice cream, including your favorite, blue moon."
  • In the caption of the image there "The now former BUS US 41 along Washington Street in downtown Marquette" what is "now" doing? I see that in the accompanying prose as well. I know what you're trying to do with it, but does leaving it out really change the meaning? The "now" is implied.
  • "It was later designated as BUS US 41/BUS M-28" In earlier constructions of this sort, you don't use "as" (and correctly so).
  • "The proposed swap traded jurisdiction on the unsigned M-554 and the business route from the state to the city." This is confusing to me. First, the "swap traded" is ungainly. Second, it doesn't make sense because I don't see anything being "traded"; I just see jurisdiction being passed from the state to the city for two different roads.
  • Later, you call it a transfer which seems more apt.

--Laser brain (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've swept through that section mentioned, and Dank has given the article an unsolicited copy edit through other sections. Are we getting warmer? Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support as soon as LaserBrain and Tony are happy, with the standard disclaimer. I just finished some copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the copy edit. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I gave it another read-through and it's looking good. Thanks for the copyedit, DanK—a fresh pair of eyes is always helpful especially since I've been through it 2 or 3 times and Imzadi probably a hundred. --Laser brain (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

  My pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support I'm satisfied that Tony's and Laser brains comments along with Dank's copy-edit have pushed this to FA quality. Great job (to both reviewers and nominator), and I'm impressed with the research. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:24, 6 June 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 16:40, 2 June 2009 [112].

---

Landing at Nadzab

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... One of the most imaginative operations of the Second World War in the Pacific, with parachuting and white-water rafting. Also, we have video... Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support

The geography section seems a little out of place at the beginning - I'd suggest moving it lower down and having the strategies section to start off with.

Done.

'By agreement among the Allied nations, in March 1942 the Pacific theatre was divided into the South West Pacific Area, with General Douglas MacArthur as Supreme Commander, and the Pacific Ocean Areas, under Admiral Chester W. Nimitz.' - Does this mean MacArthus was Surpeme Commander with Nimitz under him, or did Nimitz hold equal rank? That needs to be qualified.

MacArthur was senior in rank, but neither was subordinate to the other. The two commands were completely separate. Attempted to explain this.

What was 'Task One'?

A moving target. Added a few words to explain this.

'Blamey's operational concept was for a double envelopment of Lae, using "two of the finest divisions on the Allied side",[12] with Major General George Wootten's 9th Division landing east of Lae in a shore-to-shore operation, while Major General George Alan Vasey's 7th Division, in a reprise of the Battle of Buna-Gona in 1942 would approach from the west by an overland route' - This needs to be broken down into two sentences really, it's a tad long.

Done. Broken into three sentences.

If the 7th was to establish a blocking position, what was the 9th to do? This needs to be clarified more clearly.

Done. Added explanation.

'The plan called for the 7th Division to move in transports to Port Moresby and in coastal shipping to the mouth of the Lakekamu River' - Written like this it would seem to connect to the previous operation, so it should be clarified this is about the landing at Nadzab itself.

Done.

Why does the article concentrate more on the 7th than the 9th? I realize the 7th utilized the paratroopers, but some more details on the 9th's role during the planning stages would be good, even if just for completeness of the picture.

Because the 9th Division operation has an entire article of its own (which I haven't written yet) called the Landing at Lae.

'Colonel Kenneth H. Kinsler, the commander of the 503rd Parachute Infantry Regiment' - Don't think you need the 503rd's full name here, as it was given two sentences prior.

Okay.

'Needless to say, Vasey was less than impressed' - That seems a little informal, perhaps just 'When informed of this, Vasey was less than impressed'?

Done.

How can the two weather forecasting teams know nothing about the weather (odd in the first place given their profession!) but then apparently be correct in their prediction that the weather would clear on the day of the jump?

A minor miracle really. Kenney wanted accurate forecasts days in advance but this was nearly impossible for the forecasters to do. Added some explanation. Of course it was much easier for Kenney, because he knew nothing about meteorology. Added explanation.

'Conditions were favourable, while the 85% humidity kept the screens effective for five minutes and stoped their dispersal for ten' - Just a slight spelling mistake.

Well spotted.

'Brigadier Eather came up in his jeep and started urging the diggers to hurry up' - By 'diggers' do you mean Australians?

Yes. Linked digger.

Did 25th Infantry Brigade receive any casualties from 9th division artillery?

Yes. Added text.

Otherwise, excellent work. Sort these out, and I think I'll support! Skinny87 (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Image Review by NuclearWarfare

• File:Awm 128387 nadzab.jpg - I moved this to Commons and fixed it up myself. If there are only US planes involved, I assume it is OK to assume that someone from the US Army took this.

  Done. It is a US Army photo. It appears in Miller. But the AWM copy is nicer.

• File:Elkton Plan.jpg - Could you please add a better source? You will want the webpage the JPG is clickable to from. (It should be a html/pdf page rather than a JPG). After that, could you please ask me to move it to commons for you, if you don't know how to do that yourself?

  Done.

• File:Nadzab and Lae.jpg - Same as the above image.

  Done.

• File:Short 25pdr.jpg - Could you please put this in {{Information}}?

  Done.

• File:C-47 transport planes loaded for Nadzab .jpg - I'll move this to Commons; it looks good.
• File:2-4-FA regt in C-47.jpg - Can you add the ID number and replace the link in the source with the {{AWM-image}}?

  Done.

• File:Markham River Crossing.jpg - Looks good; I'll move it to Commons for you.
• File:Jacksons Strip.jpg - Looks good; I'll move it to Commons for you.
• File:Lae AWM015783.jpg - Looks good; I'll move it to Commons for you.

All issues resolved with images. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 01:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• The websites in the notes need publishers. (This includes the Lowe, Yoshikhara and Watson refs in the references...)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is an excellent article which meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The mark of a really good article is that it tells you all about something you never knew about, without making you feel you need to know more, and that while reading it no obvious ways to improve it spring to mind. This does that. – iridescent 20:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Great article.--Grahame (talk) 02:07, 1 June 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 16:40, 2 June 2009 [113].

---

Macaroni Penguin

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets criteria. Oringally brought to GA status by LNG123, I copyedited and added facts and had Sasata help out with some more facts and copyediting to round it out. Have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I haven't consulted it, but I'm curious that the OED entry referenced (currently as reference 4) is for 'Raven'. William Avery (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

oops, my bad. fixed now, derivation was under "macaroni" Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Support William Avery (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks! :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Pictures are way too damn cute. This is an obvious attempt to sway the reviewers. Will strike Oppose if Surgeon General warnings for hyper-cuteness are placed below all images. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No way man! I always found Macaronis weird looking when compared against the much more photogenic Southern Rockhopper Penguin...now that is cute. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Image Review by NuclearWarfare - Two of the images are taken by a Wikipedian and published under a free license, and the other is a seemingly legitimate Creative Commons image from Flickr. Images are therefore good. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 04:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• "are poorly known, the successful ..." Here you can put a period (or full-stop, depending upon your persuasion), a semicolon or an endash, but a comma just won't do. I would have just fixed it, but there are stylistic options... Ling.Nut (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC) (semicoloned) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Leaning Support. I don't expect anyone to find any hidden problems etc. If a big issue arises, please let me know. Otherwise +S. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Juliff, Peter (December 2008) appears to be an article from The Bird Observer – membership magazine of the Bird Observation & Conservation Australia (BOCA) organization. Not mentioned in cite. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Extra info added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support and comment COI - I did a superficial ce before this came to FAC, and I am a member of the bird project. Two minor points in refs to address jimfbleak (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • ref 44 has a different date style to the rest
  • some of the isbn numbers retain hyphens, some don't, need to be consistent

Goshdarn. I thought brigherorange's script woulda got them. ok... got the ref, though I do like that alternate form of accessdate which I hadn't seen before. Will have to hunt isbns - is there a place to find where the dashes go? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless you object stiongly, it's easiest to take out the hyphens that are there, rather than add new ones. jimfbleak (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 18 (Bernstein) is actually from Auk a journal. The section in the journal is Short Communications. Please fix to reflect its journal article status, not the website it's currently cited as. (sorry, fixed now (?)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.arkive.org/macaroni-penguin/eudyptes-chrysolophus/info.html a reliable source?

I removed the vague sentence it referenced - it is pretty obvious and I don't think it adds anything to the article really. I didn't put it in in the first place. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 29, (Bost..) are you citing the abstract or the actual article? If the article, it should be formatted as a journal article.

the article has not been published in print,only online, so I cannot find a volume and issue. Is this what you mean? doi is now only link Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support An excellent and very informative article! My only problem is that "with a minimum of 11,841,600 pairs of Macaroni Penguins worldwide." and "estimated at around 18 million individuals" contradict each other. Reywas92^Talk 16:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks - I was tempted to delete on but both were informative. One is a 1993 calculation, and the other 2004. There is also mention of a population fall. Hence the discrepancy. Shall I see if I can make it a little clearer? I was tempted to put "current" in but that is usually discouraged. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do something. 23.6 million to 18 million is kind of a big difference - 25%. Maybe you can find further references with the most current numbers. Reywas92^Talk 20:15, 2 June 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 16:40, 2 June 2009 [114].

---

Polish culture during World War II

Nominator(s): _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The article has undergone copyediting per last month request. For introduction and such, see the old nomination. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Very inconsistent formatting in references... A few are done with name-year notes that refer to books cited in the same format the "cite book" template generates (e.g., Madajczyk p.122... which refers to Madajczyk, Czesław. Polityka III Rzeszy w okupowanej Polsce, Tom II). However, a very large number are not. I suggest that you consistently follow the "cite book" format whenever you give the full reference information. The degree of inconsistency is so great that this is a deal-breaker for me; I will Oppose if it isn't cleared up in a few days. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• All books are now standardized and listed in the references section.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - This'll do for a start:

The first one that jumps out is that massive list of Polish authors/writers etc near the top of the article; it doesn't seem to do anything useful in the article, and to be honest it just looks awful. Please cut it down to a few of the most notable or well-known authors etc.

Lead could do with an expansion given the size of the article overall.

There is absolutely no background to the Polish occupation - I'd expect to see at least a general paragraph covering the lead up, ie the invasion, division between Germany and the USSR, etc.

Staggering the pictures would also be a good idea.

It still needs a good copy-edit, mainly for language flow - whilst it's all gramatically correct as far as I can see, it's rather stilted in places.

Okay, that's the second huge, often red-linked, list of names I've seen - now it just looks like you're bulking the article up. Please trim them down to the most notable/important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinny87 (talk • contribs)

A background section has been added. Various editor move the images as they like, all in the name of it looking good for the FA, and I have long ago given up on trying to interfere. I will expand the lead now, but I don't know what you mean by irrelevant lists of names. All names cited are referenced, are were mentioned by the authors as being relevant to the subject. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I mean those names, many of which are redlinks, seem to be a blatant attempt to expand the article whilst adding nothing of value; the article wouldn't suffer if, at the very least, all of the redlinked names were removed. If not all the redlinks, then certainly narrowing down each list of names to two or three at the most. I take your point on the images. Skinny87 (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but one and a half sentences is not a sufficient background for the subject. Skinny87 (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What about the main templates directing the readers to the dedicated article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It still needs to be expanded to a few paragraphs. Skinny87 (talk) 07:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

There is now a full paragraph. If there are areas you think should be covered more, please let me know what they are. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Interesting and comprehensive article, though prose could do with a polish, moving some "the"s around in the usual way. Near the end "Over the years, nearly three-quarters of the Polish people have emphasized the importance of World War II to the Polish national identity" does not seem precisely supported by the ref, and should be rephrased. The red-links seem inevitable in an article on such a subject; no doubt Piotrus will create articles for many in due course. All the images are on the right, which is discouraged, and Der Klabautermann and the Andrzej Wróblewski at the end face out of the page. These and maybe Chopin should be moved to the left. Johnbod (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Cites and refs not even within a mile of being standardized. pick a style and stick with it. Ling.Nut (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• All books are now cited in Harvard style. What's the problem? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply. Please compare Raack to Sterling in the References section. Then also compare Raack to Moczydłowski in the Citations section. Different styles. Choose one style & stick with it, please. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Moczydłowski is a journal article. I will standardize books to Harvard, since indeed not all have dates. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose the background section seems completely useless and could be merged into the next section; a ton of redlinks of people that don't really look like will be getting an article anytime soon; half of the references are in Polish although for such a notable topic I bet there are reliable refs in English. Nergaal (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• One reviewer objects because there was no background, the next because there is... I love FACs :) The main templates direct editors to the main articles, what more background is needed? I am asking seriously; I am perhaps to familiar with the subject to understand what more is needed in the form of the introduction. Yes, many refs are in Polish since majority of the scholarship on the subject is Polish, as I wrote earlier I am unfamiliar with the very existence of any English (or otherwise...) works on the subject covered that are not already cited. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• You need to provide a decent summary of the linked article. A couple of sentences really doesn't cut it. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• All right, I hope the current one is satisfactory? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll try and knock out some of these red links by at least stubbing some of them (the names I recognize) with translations from Polish wiki. Since this is a "amongst them" list how about just including those with already existing articles and putting the full list in a footnote (so that future articles can be written on them)? Or would that be also too messy?radek (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus, I don't think Nergaal objected because the background section was there, just that it wasn't detailed enough. As for the footnote idea for the long lists of authors etc, that's an excellent idea. Skinny87 (talk) 07:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Roger that; is the expanded background better now? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 115 (Krzysztof Stoliński) the first link deadlinks

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• • That's why I've added a mirror link.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • If you expect the first link to come back sometime, that's fine. But if it's been dead a while, it's probably best to remove the link that's dead. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I am willing to give it a try, since I am not sure when it died. If it is still dead in a few months, sayonara :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. This is a very well researched article on an important topic, and one of the better articles on Wikipedia. I am confident that any stylistic concerns will be satisfactorily resolved. Nihil novi (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Look, half the cites are Harvard and the other half MLA. You want me to simply fix them for you, to save time here...? Ling.Nut (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• If you could, I'd be grateful. I will admit that tidying up refs is for me more difficult than writing the article :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ling.Nut, I am very thankful for your help, but I see that you have removed all links to Google Print. Those links were very useful; why were they removed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• I started a thread on WT:FAC about this question. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#links_to_Google_Books, I presume. I'll comment there shortly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Since we have agreed that Google Book links are acceptable, I am waiting for you to restrore the links you've removed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment

The article says nothing about German persecution of the Catholic Church in Poland. There were over 2000 priests killed there just for being Catholic priests and even more were sent to concentration camps. John Paul II was almost murdered for holding Mass at an outside altar where troops surrounded him and the congregation. The Catholic Church is a very large part of Polish culture that needs to be included in this article to meet comprehensive criteria of FA.

To be helpful, I offer you this source and quote from a respected non-Catholic historian:Owen Chadwick's A History of Christianity page 254-255 states: "When the Second World War began and the Germans conquered the Catholic country of Poland, the Nazis shot many Polish priests and a few bishops. Perhaps this was more because these clergy were leaders of the people than because they were ministers of religion. Yet the religious element was there, and many Poles were true martyrs: six bishops, 1926 priests, 580 monks, 289 nuns and many more went into concentration camps. Only Stalin committed a worse persecution of a Christian community. It would be known in history as the Martyrdom of Poland if it were not overshadowed by a worse crime. The Nazi onslaught, combined almost at the same time with Stalin's murders of church people, caused a revival of respect for religion in the West - for a decade or two. If these massacres happened when Europe started to repudiate Christianity, the answer must, at least in part, be to return to all that was best in the moral traditions of Christendom. An attack on human rights could be condemned only if human rights had a place in the scheme of the universe; that is, only if therer existed a religious apprehension of humanity and its place in the world." NancyHeise ^talk 17:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting point. I am aware of works on this subject (but thank you for the quote), but the current article didn't emphasize it (although note for example statistics like "During the war, Poland lost... 18% to 28% of its clergy"). I think you are right and German Nazi persecution of the Roman Catholic Church in Poland deserves a better mention; I'll shorty add a dedicated para. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: done. I will also add a note to the Soviet section on similar measures (source) when I am less tired :) Done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It is better now but I still think there should be some mention of the fact that a large number of priests, monks and nuns were sent to concentration camps as well as being exterminated. Some people think the concentration camps held just Jewish people when in reality, a large number of homosexuals, Christians and other "undesirables" were in the mix. Poland contributed a lot of those "undesirables" to German concentration camps. I see where your article talks about the extermination but not the deportation to these camps and I think at least a sentence or two should suffice. NancyHeise ^talk 20:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, to help here is a quote from John Vidmar's The Catholic Church Throughout the Ages page 329 quote: "Of 10,000 priests in Poland, 3700 were imprisoned, and 2700 were executed." The author provides a note after this sentence that states "Also in Poland, 1200 nuns were imprisoned, 3800 displaced, 350 executed." I don't expect you to include all the numbers of each group but your article does not make distinction between execution and imprisonment as these scholarly sources do. NancyHeise ^talk 20:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The article already mentions that members of Polish intelligentsia have been sent to the concentration camps; I've added priests to the list of specific groups in the para preceeding the one that I've added. You are welcome to use the refs you've found to expand this para. I think that we need a place on Wikipedia that would include those numbers, you may want to take a look at Pope Pius XII and Poland, Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles and Roman Catholic Church in Poland (we also need histry of the Roman Catholic Church in Poland). I am wondering if there is a good place in the article to at least link to the article on Pope Pius XII and Poland? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose due to abundant use of dubious sources e.g.:

• sources published in Communist Poland, such as Madajczyk, 1970 (used to source numerous statements)
• a pamphlet published by the Polish "Ministry of Information" in 1945 (used to source numerous statements)
• no publishing date given for "Czocher, Anna, "Jawne polskie życie kulturalne w okupowanym Krakowie 1939–1945 w świetle wspomnień " (used to source numerous statements) (meanwhile added)
• website article by Ewa Bukowska - not fact-checked/peer-reviewed, not written by historians/scholars (used to source numerous statements)
• website http://www.warsawuprising.com/timeline.htm - not fact-checked/peer-reviewed, not written by historians/scholars (used to source numerous statements)

A FA (or any other article) should not rely on that kind of sources to back up "facts". Skäpperöd (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm very, very interested in the response to this question. Have we evidence that the sources are not reliable/NPOV/high quality? Ling.Nut (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The listed websites may qualify as a WP:SPS, but not as a WP:RS in sensu stricto. The sources published during the Communist era should be treated along that line, too: The Communist regime in Poland was partially based on an anti-German agenda and ruled Poland in a totalitarian manner - no free press, no independent research, censorship etc pp. More complex related discussions concerning this kind of sources are here (general reliability discussion at RS/N), here (article-specific RfC), and here (TfD discussion). Consensus so far has not been reached, most editors argue to not discard those sources at sight, but to use them with great care eg for describing historiographic perspectives. WP:RS says scholary sources should be "published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses" - I do not think a Communist era book qualifies for that, neither does the 1945 source of the Polish "information" ministry. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No. The consensus on RS is and was that communist-era sources are generally reliable, but should be treated carefully, particularly if they touch upon an area of known bias. If in doubt whether a particular fact is reliable, this fact should be discussed, and if possible, sourced with non-communist era works. If a particular publication or an author is in doubt, critical reviews need to be presented before the book or an author are deemed unreliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Skapperod, your crusade against Polish sources is getting tiresome. Reliability of sources from Polish communist times have been discussed ad nauseum, including at WP:RSN (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_sources_published_in_Communist_Poland), at Talk:Polish_areas_annexed_by_Nazi_Germany#Sources_published_during_the_Communist_era and at Template talk:Communist era sources (editors may also be interested in the ongoing tfd). In all of those discussions the consensus was against you. Polish sources are reliable, and as was explained to you several times, Madajczyk's is considered the most exhaustive review of Nazi's treatment of Polish society and culture, and is still widely cited by post-communist Polish historiography, and not only Polish: here's a list of ~50 English language books published after 1989 that cite him: [115].

Data has been added to Czocher ref. Bukowska was discussed before, and the publisher (London Branch of the Polish Home Army Ex-Servicemen Association) is reliable. Ditto for http://www.warsawuprising.com is run by the Project InPosterum. In any case, I don't think any controversial statements are being sourced from those works, anyway. If you think they are used as a source for some controversial material, let me know and I'll try to provide a better ref. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no "crusade against Polish sources". This is about how Communist-era sources are used, and I don't know why you think "consensus was against me". I encourage every reviewer to read through the links Piotrus and me gave above to get a picture of how editors want to treat these sources.

Maybe Piotrus can provide a link to the Bukowska discussion - if there is evidence that the site is not to be treated as a WP:SPS I will strike it from the list, too. If "Project imposterum" is a "reputable peer-reviewed source" this should be outlined in the ref and I strike it from the list, too.

Wikipedia has clear guidelines on what sources are reliable for. These should be met in every article, and it is unthinkable for me to have an article pass GA and FA review just because it's MOSsy while statements are referenced with sources that per wiki's core guidelines are not supposed to source these statements. If everything sourced to the Communist-era sources is unproblematic and widely recognized as an uncontroversial factum, then it should be no problem to find a source not published in a totalitarian regime. Same goes for the websites. I don't argue about the content itself, but about the way it is sourced. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be convinient for some to eliminate all work of Polish historiography, yet this is not how we deal with it. I've written an extensive article on Soviet historiography, which is much more problematic then Polish, but even I wouldn't say that Soviet history sources should be discarded as a rule (and yes, consensus upon consensus of editors at RS/V and so on have stated the very same thing). If you have issues with content, we can look at it. Polish sources are reliable, unless proven otherwise (look at Talk:Mikhail Meltyukhov to see how one can disprove authors: hint - find reviews critical of their works or research in general). EOT, as far as I am concerned. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"eliminate all work of Polish historiography" - that is not what I said, as you well know. Careful use and attribution to works co-published by the Communist censors. That's what I am saying. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody will disagree with you on principle. But what does this have to do with this article? The works are properly attributed (cited), in most cases the authors are notable enough to have articles about them, further helping the user to learn about the source (ex. by reading Czesław Madajczyk bio). Are you saying that they have not been carefully used? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 09:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We must avoid broad-brush condemnations of scholarship, based on when it was published. A lot of excellent work was published in Poland before 1989, some of it by authors who began their careers well before World War II and who had little or no sympathy for communism. Some of this scholarship indeed contributed to the sociopolitical transformations that followed after 1989. Nihil novi (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Skapperod, this has been discussed on at least three occasions already. And each time the general consensus is that while in GENERAL Communist-era sources must be used with caution, Madajczyk in PARTICULAR is a reliable source. In addition to Piotrus' list of around 50 English language sources which cite him and use him and consider him reliable, here's a very incomplete list of links to academic peer reviewed works which also cite him, available online: [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123]. And that's just from a cursory examination. Additionally there's many many Polish post-1990 works which cite him as well. While I understand your concerns about Communist era sources in general, in this particular instance - Madajczyk - there is pretty overwhelming evidence that he should be considered reliable. So you should probably strike him from that list as well unless you're going to take the (anti-consensus) position that any Communist era source, even when considered reliable by Western academics, is always and everywhere unreliable.radek (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have the statements sourced to Madajczyk cited in other works use those as supplement cite. The problem with the booksearch Piotrus performed is that the returned hits were mostly random and unrelated mentions of the name or date and not the actual cites you provided. The problem with the cites you provided is in turn that not the statements made in the article are cited. Madajczyk was a member of the ruling Communist party. In Madajczyk's favour it must be ammended that membership in the Communist party was semi-obligatory to everyone aiming at a successful career and does not necessarily mean that the member supported everything the Communists said and did. Yet no matter how decent a person was - and in favour of the scholars let's assume they were the most decent persons - there was no way of circumventing the censors' guidelines. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Skäpperöd (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You are obviously asking for something well and beyond the usual standard, and, as you well know, pretty much impossible. To take a work in a foreign language and then find the a corresponding sentence in a English language work would involve a prohibitive amount of time and effort. It is hard to avoid a suspicion that you are just trying to throw up insurmountable roadblocks here. The issue is Madajczyk as a source and whether or not he is considered a reliable source by a) Western academics and b) the consensus of Wikipedia editors as discussed on RS board and other places. The answer on both these counts is "Yes - reliable". I don't see why if Madajczyk is treated as a reliable source by numerous non-communist writers (as shown generally by Piotrus and in the specifically enumerated instances by me) Wikipedia should have a problem with him. This also seems like something along the lines of a POV fork - trying to restart a discussion on this topic after you've failed to get your way in the three previous discussions.radek (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In regard to Bukowska - website article by Ewa Bukowska - not fact-checked/peer-reviewed, not written by historians/scholars (used to source numerous statements): Actually, the website is written by many or at least some historians and scholars, for example Prof. Garlinski, [124], Norman Davies, MRD Foot [125] (it's the Oxford Companion to WWII!) [126], Kondracki [127] ... and others, which you can/could've checked yourself. As to Bukowska herself (her bio's not up yet on the site) she is one of the Polish teachers that the article discusses and has certainly been published on the subject in academic work, for example, here: [128] or here: [129]. Additionally this is a bit of making a mountain out of a mole hill since out of the four times that Bukowska is used as a source in the article, three of those times are backed up by other, additional sources and I don't believe any of the statements are controversial.radek (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because the website hosts articles of notable scholars does not mean that everything else the website hosts becomes automatically a reliable source other than per WP:SPS. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It takes a good bit of bad faith to reach such a conclusion. I could maybe see it if it was like one historian and a dozen unknown writers but here we have basically a star studded cast. I've also provided other information about Bukowska which further supports her reliability.radek (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, website http://www.warsawuprising.com/timeline.htm - not fact-checked/peer-reviewed, not written by historians/scholars (used to source numerous statements) - actually, the website, whose aim is to promote knowledge of the Uprising, was constructed with considerable input from notable historians and archivists: [130].radek (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

While scholary input is mentioned in the "Thank you"-section, this input is not identifiable in the text, and from the very "Thank you"-section it is obvious that the articles are neither written by these scholars, nor a sole rewrite of their work. The website is to be used as a WP:SPS only. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Many academic, reliable, sources that we cite in many FAs only have a general bibliography without the input of each individual work being readily identifiable in the text. This is no different as the acknowledgment is essentially a form of a bibliography.radek (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And let's not forget my point, so far unanswered by Skäpperöd: are any of those sources used as a sole source for controversial/fringe/extreme claims? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 09:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

About Madajczyk and assesment of his work in modern western historiography:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_areas_annexed_by_Nazi_Germany#About_Madajczyk "It is with great sadness that we have learned of the death of Professor Czeslaw Madaiczyk, Chairman of the Polish Committee for the History of World War I and II, who died on 15 February 2008. Czeslaw Madajczyk was an eminent historian, whose scholarly work on 20th Century Polish and European History has been widely acknowledged and respected. His important studies on Nazi occupation of Europe after 1938, and in particular on Hitler’s rule of Poland have greatly enhanced our understanding of the often complicated and obscured processes of German occupation policies as well as of the differing experiences of ordinary peoples under Fascist dictatorship and oppression. These and some of his other books, notably on cultural life in Nazi occupied Europe, on the “Generalplan Ost” and other German war-time plans for Eastern Europe as well as on the Soviet massacre at Katyn, have become milestones of the historiography of the Second World War. He was a co-founder and for more than two decades also the first editor of the distinguished Polish quarterly “Dzieje Najnowsze” (Recent History). Between 1971 and 1983 Professor Madajczyk led the Institute of History of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Besides he was Vice-President of the Polish Committee of Historical Sciences (1971-1985) and later became one of the Vice-Presidents of the International Committee for the History of the Second World War (1980–1995). In these capacities Czeslaw Madajczyk was an ardent supporter of international scholarly cooperation and exchanges, even at times when relations between historians on both sides of the iron curtain were still threatened or questioned by political conditions and developments. The death of Czeslaw Madajczyk is a grave loss for the international community of World War II historians. Gerhard Hirschfeld President of the International Committee for the History of the Second World War" http://www.ihtp.cnrs.fr/cih2gm/

--Molobo (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The article is comprehensive and quite sufficiently detailed; providing excellent background information for further research, but please keep in mind also that this is not a book and cannot be treated as such with further requests for covering everything. For example, the pivotal role of the Catholic Church in Poland is undeniable, but the church is not a “cultural” institution in the usual sense – it is a “religious” institution often with considerable holdings of historic art and archives. By the same token, I would suggest to please consider trimming the extensive list of obscure writers whose contribution to Polish culture is (and will always remain) negligible, such as the petty communist ideologues without sister articles in Wikipedia. Only the names of instrumental contributors to Polish culture can be justified by the limited size and scope of this 80 KB article, as per above. --Poeticbent talk 16:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking to the polish sources issue above, I don't see a problem with using those sources if they are supplemented with others. This article does that. I think the inclusion of some communist era Polish sources are evidence of the article's attempt at comprehensiveness. If these were the only sources used, I might think they were evidence of the article's bias but this is not the case. NancyHeise ^talk 17:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If each of these references was supplemented, I would not argue. But they are not. Eg, the first reference to Madajczyk (1970) is what is now citenote [7], which is used nine times. Of the nine statements sourced to [7], only two are backed up by another one. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. NancyHeise ^talk 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

So? Is anything cited with those sources controversial? As I've explained above, Madajczyk is considered both reliable and an expert on the subject. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

More comments from Nancy : This sentence "The policy of supporting propaganda cultural activities in Polish language clashed with the Russification policy which argued for phasing out the Polish language. While Polish language was removed from schools[67] and even Polish street signs disappeared,[76] the pro-Polish language policy was spurred before the bogus elections of 26 October 1939,[76] and then in late spring 1940, after Hitler's armies had defeated France and the Soviet Union was left alone facing the Third Reich, and Stalin concluded that Poles could be useful in a confrontation with the Nazis." is an example of the problem I have with the article's prose.

I think the article content is fascinating and I want to support it for FA but I can not because it needs a very thorough effort to correct the prose. Many sentences are missing words such as "the" and are a little bit too long. It sounds as if the article's creator speaks English as a second language and I am very impressed with the article. I only speak one language, English and have tried to learn both Spanish and French for many years with little results to show so bilingual people are an amazement to me. I will try to help go through the article to clean it up but it would be nice if someone could help me too. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I will give the article another go-over for copy editing - the sentence you cite is definitely clumsy. This can definitely be fixed.radek (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

At this count, the article has been copyedited by ~10 native speakers. Any further help is of course welcome, but I would lie if I said that the copyediting process is very well designed. That said, I of course agree that English Wikipedia article should be written in best English prose. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus, can you do something to break up the sentence I pointed out above? I don't want to touch it without going to the source and first reading what the scholar is trying to convey. I could not do this because the source is in Polish. The English supplementary source is listed on Google Books but the pages cited in the article are not part of the preview available on Google Books. The sentence should really be broken down into two or three separate sentences. NancyHeise ^talk 00:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll do what I can.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 09:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral I regret that I can not support the article right now. In addition to prose, I agree with Skäpperöd that the article makes excessive use of Polish language sources. Use of these sources makes it difficult for someone like me to check content enough to make sure the article is free of plagiarism and accurately reflects the meaning expressed by the sources supporting the sentences. While many English language sources are used to compliment the Polish sources. There are large stretches of article content where no English language companion source exists to support the Polish language sources. If I were a more intelligent person who could speak Polish and English, like the article's nominator, I might be in a position to support. Perhaps there exists on Wikipedia a bilingual editor like this who could come examine the article and offer a more sound opinion. NancyHeise ^talk 18:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"agree with Skäpperöd that the article makes excessive use of Polish language sources" - seems like I have not made myself clear: I do not object Polish language sources. I object to the unconditional use of sources published during the the Communist era. And the websites which as WP:SPS do not qualify to back up anything other than statements about themselves. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The use is quite conditional, but your critique is not. You have so far not criticized any part of the cited content, you just criticize the sources in general, again and again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at the previous FAC, where I linked my lenghty explanation on the sources used. Short version: much of the relevant scholarship is available only in Polish, since (surprise!) Polish scholars are more interested in the issue then non-Polish ones. Please also note that so far three bilingual (English-Polish) editors have commented here (Radeksz, Nihil novi and Poeticbent), all of them supportive of this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that much scholarship on this subject is probably in Polish. I do not object to the use of Polish sources or communist era Polish sources. I was just pointing out that I am not qualified to cast a support vote because the sources are in a language I do not speak. I hope the FAC directors assistants will place proper weight on the votes of those bilingual editors. The article needs some polish on the prose before it can go FA however. NancyHeise ^talk 21:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are qualified to vote - you don't have to research of all sources to vote, I don't recall seeing this in any FAC procedures :) Also, please note Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources (they are allowed). Btw, could you help with the prose polish? That's something that I cannot do myself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 09:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Very few of the users of Wikipedia can read Polish, even the Polish readers would have great difficulty to obtain and verify the sources in this article. To improve the article English language sources that can be obtained in libraries and sold on the internet should support those out of print Polish sources now used. Keep them, but include English language sources also.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The following template may be useful in this case,

Vielen dank, Skapperod for pointing out the need to improve this article with verifiable sources--Woogie10w (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that Polish sources cover the discussed issues in more detail than English, hence per Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources they are acceptable. Of course, if you can verify various facts from Polish sources with English, by all means, please do so. As I've explained above, I was paying more attention to this article being comprehensive than I cared about what language sources I use. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

My obvious intent is to forgo the nuclear option that would tag the article as tainted red propaganda, a precision guided strike with reliable English language sources is all that is needed.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you suggest some? Nihil novi (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Polish Society Under German Occupation by Jan Gross would provide the foundation, Madajczyk would fill in the fine point details--Woogie10w (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus, here's a good English language source [131] it is published by this [132] publishing house that was founded by a Polish man whose specialty is publishing English translations of Polish and other foreign language books. I think it would be an improvement for the article to use more English language sources. It is a valuable article full of great information and you have done a tremendous job giving us this gift of Polish insight into your country's cultural trials in WWII. I would like to see this become FA but I can not support or do much with the prose if the sentences are cited to Polish sources. Can you spend a little bit of time to add English refs to the article and then give me a ping and I'll come help with prose? Please consider that English speaking news organizations and others often use Wikipedia for information but the information needs to be verifiable by them as well. If the article cites obscure Polish sources, it is doubtful that it would be a useful article to the population at large. NancyHeise ^talk 01:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Are there any particular claims you'd like me to verify with English sources? Please note that Ling.Nut has removed all Google Book links, making the verification of anything much more difficut, I am now waiting for him to restore them before I'll start adding new refs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I was holding off on an actual vote until a little bit of work to improve the article has been done. Now it has been copy edited a few more times by several different editors, a lot of the red links have been now created (about 25 or so), referencing style has been standardized and I hope the concern over the sources have been alleviated. No reason for this not to go ahead.radek (talk) 06:43, 31 May 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 16:40, 2 June 2009 [133].

---

Checkers speech

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets FA standards. It has passed GA, and had a peer review with only superficial problems found. I've added to the images by taking some myself, and I think it is ready to go.Wehwalt (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support: I passed the article at GA. I also contributed to the peer review, where I noted various improvements and made a few more suggestions. This is a well-writen, even gripping account of Nixon's travails in the early 1950s, and how he overcame them with the help of a little dawg...What a pity we haven't got Nixon to kick around any more. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support I also peer reviewed this and find it meets all the FAC criteria - well done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for image concerns as follow:

• File:Nixon while in US Congress.jpg: this is likely not in public domain.[134][135] Suggestions: I pretty doubt much that Britannica owns the copyright to this image (I am quite certain it is a public domain image, judging how the rest are attributed to AP and the lot), but we would need to find what would make it in public domain. Guardian claims this to be in public domain, but without a source on what kind of public domain this photo is... I can only suggest to crop from the NPS shots here (note: the photo by Robert S. Oakes is copyrighted).
• File:S000701.jpg: same issue as above. Suggestion: crop from this, in which he is slightly looking down, or this for his right profile (both NASA photos), or this (ARC ID: 200392), a photo by a NPS photographer.
• File:Eisenhower 68-40-67.jpg: I am not certain over the status of this photo. http://nixon.archives.gov/virtuallibrary/gallery10.php says it is a public domain image, but the site later claims it may not be...[136] Eisenhower Library admits to hosting copyrighted images.[137][138] If they are taken on the 1952 campaign trail, the photos might not be taken by federal employees but by journalists or Eisenhower's own aides (are the latter federal employees)? Again we have this photo at Britannica that I doubt is theirs to copyright but...

  Brought up for discussion at Commons:Commons talk:PD files#File:Eisenhower 68-40-67.jpg. Jappalang (talk) 07:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted from article. I just can't believe it is PD.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Other images are verifiably in the public domain or licensed. It perked my curiosity that the article did not feature the namesake. No Checkers. Undoubtably it was because he died before Nixon entered office, hence no Presidential shots to feature the dog. Note that pre- and post-Presidential images in the Nixon library are copyrighted.[139][140] This Nixon Library image is copyrighted by the Associated Press.[141] I would think the spaniel deserves a show here, but alas, no free images for him. Jappalang (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. That hurts. Well, I've changed the photos, and I think it is pretty clear the replacements are public domain. I have totally scrapped the first one, with the Checkers speech screencap, I don't really need it. Can you let people on Commons who may be in a better position than me to look into the Nixon shot? I've used it in other articles.

No, there is no Checkers, because this is about the speech, not the dog. It is why I took out the photo of Checkers' headstone, which is unquestionably PD. I have seen a couple of shots of Checkers, one with Nixon sort of hugging the dog, the other the Nixon family walking with Checkers on the beach, but I do not feel I can establish a fair use rationale, as this is not a biography, so to speak, of the dog.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know fair use for Checkers cannot be reasonably estalished for this article (the main focus is on the speech). I am bringing up the Eisenhower-Nixon photo up for discussion at Commons:PD files as a preliminary step. Jappalang (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I really meant the Nixon in Congress one. The thing is, most of us are not image hawks. We rely in good faith on Commons, assuming they have their act together. I took two photos for this article, in Cleveland and Wheeling (both short detours from my route, no biggie), but I would be hard pressed to make up for the loss of a historic photograph.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll start working on a fair use rationale for the Wheeling photo, just in case. You might want to put a note on the Richard Nixon talk page or notify Happyme22, since the shot is also used in the Nixon article.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have enhanced the fair use rationale for the Wheeling photo, and I believe we have a fairly cast iron fair use for it now. The rest of the images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. No more image issues. Jappalang (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments

• The NYT said there was an ongoing criminal investigation? Do you have the actual NYT clippings? Can you get them? I want to see more details about this. Whether true or false, it is a very significant aspect.
• Named refs could be used for: Morris 1990 pp. 776–78, p. 852, p. 775, p. 763. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have access through the NY Times archives. Basically, there was a statute that said that a federal employee can't accept outside compensation. The Gibson Dunn report said that a senator is not a Federal employee and also that Nixon's reimbursement was not outside compensation, and dug up an attorney general opinion from the Harding (!) Administration saying that members of congress can accept reimbursement for their expenses. But I can't forward or put online the actual pdfs. I'll check the refs and see if there are dups and make any necessary modifications.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• No need to check the refs; I just did. ;-) So are you saying that the NYT was explicitly referring to the Gibson Dunn research as "a criminal investigation"? Or were they say there was anther investigation going on? Ling.Nut (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. No, the Gibson Dunn report was not issued until Sept 23, the day of the speech. That morning, the Times had reported the Justice Department was looking into the Fund issue based on former 18 USC 1914. That section, now codified here has since been modified to make it screamingly clear it doesn't apply to members of Congress or their staff. All this was quietly dropped, I assume, after the tidal wave of support for Nixon, since I can't find references talking about it after the 23rd.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So was the Justice Department in fact looking into it? Any other confirmation of this? And.. how formal or informal was this "looking into it"? And how formal or informal did the NYT article make it seem? Ling.Nut (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to say. Times relied on unnamed sources. They also reported, and I found this interesting but not quite worthy of inclusion in the article, that the Democrats may have known about the Fund as far back as July, and were hanging on to it for the right moment. However, since the source is unnamed and it's all a bit ex post facto, I decided not to include that. None of Nixon's biographers mention the criminal matter. So I'd say they were looking at it, but that didn't mean that there was any serious intent that it go anywhere. Besides, half of Congress had them, and the statute was very murky in its phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that the image that Jappalang referred to is now up for deletion. I will remove it from the article pending the outcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the image would be OK as the article's only fair use image (if it turns out that it is not free). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, would I have to reupload it? The Wheeling event is an important event in this article, I'd really like to have that image.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume it could be uploaded on Wikipedia (not Commons) with a Fair Use rationale. If I recall correctly, an earlier version of the photo of the CCC worker statue in Leonard Harrison State Park started out on Commons, then had to be deleted there as the artwork is copyrighted, so we uploaded it to Wikipedia (to complicate matters, the current photo is a new version uploaded later and the old one was deleted as it was fair use only). Just to be very clear, I support the use of the Eisenhower-Nixon photo as fair use in this article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've restored it to the article for the time being, and we'll see what happens with the deletion. I've saved a copy on my computer too. I foresee a problem if I reupload it, will the fact it comes from the Eisenhower Library be sufficient as a source? After all, we have no idea who took it ...--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think as long as there is a clear source for where you got it and they seem reputable, it is OK, even if the author of the image is unknown. See this image of Leonard Harrison, also from Leonard Harrison State Park. It was in when the article passed FAC - all we know is who it is and where we got it, not when it was taken or by whom. I also assume Jappalang will correct me if I make a mistake here (with thanks in advance), Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I change the pd/commons rationale on the copy that is on Wikipedia to a fair use rationale, and will that copy then survive the (in my view, inevitable) deletion of this image at Commons? I don't see any way this is a pd image. There's no way there was a Federal employee at the Wheeling rally taking photos within the scope of his employment. No way.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have uploaded lots of Files here (on WP) for use in DYK that were also already on Commons. There is a warning when you upload them that the file is a duplicate (if the name is the same). Deletion of a file on Wikipedia or on Commons is only there, not both places. The descriptions are also independent (i.e. DYK files on WP have {{C-uploaded}} which is not a Commons template). If you want, I suppose the file name on WP could be different too (as long as it is a duplicate file, I think there will still be a notice). Commons can not host fair use images, but WP can. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I didn't upload it, I just undeleted it since it was previously a WP image before being moved to commons. I added an appropriate template and a hopefully appropriate fair use rationale. That should solve the problem, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments It's pretty good, but I found stuff to do. Please check it over again for MoS issues relating to punctuation at the end of quotations, and for that pesky "with" connector (see example at the bottom below). Some issues:
  • "The Checkers speech was an early example of a politician using television to appeal directly to the electorate, but has often been mocked or denigrated." This seems to come from left field. In the robust lead, this sentence is the only suggestion that the speech was ill-received by anyone. The speech caused an outpouring of support, but it was mocked and denigrated?
    • I made it clear that most of the mocking has happened since the speech, which is mentioned in "Legacy". I didn't want to get into the ways, I considered it sufficient to mention it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "As Smith wrote one potential contributor, the donated money was to be used for:" Odd. Wrote to the contributor? This is another left field fly because we've just read about Nixon's expense account and suddenly we're reading about Smith again. Suggest more context: "As Smith wrote to one potential contributor, money donated to the Fund was to be used for:"
    • Rearranged the deck chairs in that section.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Why in that blockquote is there a stray non-breaking space in the middle of one set of ellipses?
    • Space, out.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Contributors were only drawn from Nixon's early supporters" Move the "only" further right to get the intended meaning.
    • Only not so lonely.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "and an engraving bill was unpaid pending a hoped-for contribution of $500." What does this mean? They ran out of money and couldn't pay the bill?
    • Uh, yes. They had a promised contribution, but it hadn't come in yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Warren failed in his attempt to gain the nomination, and his supporters were embittered by what they saw as political opportunism on the part of Nixon, both in accepting the vice-presidential nomination and (according to the Warren supporters), in working behind the scenes for Eisenhower's nomination despite his pledge to support Warren." I don't know, something is missing here. An "and" after the comma? Or was something cut off?
    • Rewritten--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "The candidate had the train stopped, and responded that he had been told that if he continued on his political course, crooks and communists would smear him." I don't quite follow this. Nixon said this in response to someone asking about the Fund? It seems unrelated.
    • You are exactly right. Nixon did not answer the question. Are you shocked?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "By this time, Nixon campaign headquarters was receiving a flood of telephone calls, calling on the senator to resign from the ticket." Can you revise to avoid the "calls calling"?
    • Can. Have.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Denied any hard information as to what Nixon would say, rumors flew through the media." Dangling modifier. The "rumors" were not denied.
    • Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "The senator alleged that Stevenson had minimized the threat of communism, and was thus unfit to be president." Seems like minimizing a threat would be a good thing. Do you mean "downplayed"?
    • Yes, so did he.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "With less than three minutes left to go in the allotted time" "Left" and "to go" are redundant.
    • It is a common phrase (there's 3 minutes left to go in the game, and Nixon gets ready to shoot from the floor) but I've eliminated the redundancy.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Nixon skeptics joined in, with both Stassen and Dewey sending congratulatory telegrams." Revise to eliminate the noun plus -ing construction and the undesirable "with" connector. I've fixed a few of these already, but I'm getting tired. :)
    • I got rid of most of them, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support, it's all shiny now. Thanks for addressing my feedback so quickly. This was a really interesting read, if I do say so myself. --Laser brain (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: A strong article. I've been reading Rick Perlstein's recent Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America, and this article provides much of the extra detail on the speech that I might have wanted. However, there does seem to be a significant aspect of the speech that is not currently covered. I'll simply quote from Perlstein. He's describing how exactly Nixon's speech prompted a favorable public reaction:

What delivered the telegrams were the stories. These, too, left plenty of room for dispute. "I worked my way through college," he said—he hadn't; "I guess I'm entitled to a couple of battle stars" from the war—he wasn't; his wife "was born on St. Patrick's Day"—she was born the day before St. Patrick's Day. (p. 39)

The article currently says Nixon "alluded to his work in college", without caveat; quotes him fibbing about his wife's birthday, without correction; and notes that Eisenhower told his wife "that Nixon was a completely honest man", again without caveat. (It does not cover Nixon's war claims.)

You'll note Perlstein's "too". Here's the referent:

The technical value of the financial accounting [Nixon offered] was highly debatable. It would be highly debated. His account of smears the press supposedly piled upon him during the Hiss case and after was even more so. This would be debated, too. (p. 39)

While the article currently covers the general media reaction, pro and con, there is no mention of specific debates concerning Nixon's accuracy and veracity.

Perlstein does not identify specific sources for the page from which I've quoted, but his main sources for the Checkers speech include the following: David Greenberg, Nixon's Shadow: The Shaping of His Character (pp. 31–35); Tom Wicker, One of Us: Richard Nixon and the American Dream (pp. 80–110); and Fawn Brodie, Richard Nixon: The Shaping of His Character (pp. 271–89).—DCGeist (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That is what the final quote talks about; Nixon made himself seem "one of us". After all, that's why he chose that quote generally attributed to Lincoln. The quote will make that clear to anyone who hasn't had his face rubbed in it by carefully selected quotes which I include from the speech. I chose the quotes I did either to (a) make that point, which was the majore point of Nixon's speech, (b) because they're famous, (c) for plot purposes (the ones that were aimed at Eisenhower), (d) irony ("I'm not a quitter") (e) to dispose of a part of the speech that would be troublesome to summarize, or (f) multiples of the preceding. I read Perlstein in a bookstore and found him highly biased and prone to misstatements. I haven't read Wicker, but I've read Greenberg. Brodie's book is generally discredited, by the way.

The thing is, the quote you mention is inaccurate. Nixon never offered an accounting. Eisenhower had Price Waterhouse trek out to the then-wilds of eastern L.A. county and do an accounting of Smith's records. And it came out clean. It was published in the NY Times, in full, on the 24th, by the way.

There is a comment, if you hit "edit this page" about his birthday comment about his wife. But, it isn't very much of a whopper. Ever wonder why she's called "Pat" or "Patricia" Nixon when her name was Thelma? The Ryan family nicknamed her "Pat" because her birthday was so close to St. Patrick's Day. Putting in a comment there is full disclosure enough, and will save the article over the long haul from unneeded edits. The other two--well, Ambrose, Black, and Morris, Nixon's main biographers for this period, don't twig on the question of the battle stars or the work through college, and I'm unable to find any contemporary news account questioning either. Please remember that 1952 was an era when people were very sensitive to the idea of a man claiming war honors he hadn't earned, and Nixon's war record was public knowledge after three election campaigns.

The other things you mention, his veracity/disclosure about the Fund, are discussed in the various newspaper quotes, and in the quote from Senator Anderson. I give the basics, the reader is free to examine the sources for more information. I tried to avoid both the "Nixon? He was a great guy, it was all the fault of everyone else, all the way" and "That rotten Nixon, he smeared Voorhis, he smeared Douglas, he hid behind his dog, all the way to Watergate ..." I think I did a pretty good job there.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Response: Since you seem to think nothing needs to be done, it appears I need to follow up (with a little research in a couple cases). On the specific points:

College work record. Nixon said, "I worked my way through college." This appears to be a simple falsehood. Black (p. 23) indicates a bequest from Nixon's grandfather "effectively defray[ed] all the costs of higher learning in Whittier." You need to cast your net a bit more widely on this. If you still find no one but Perlstein addressing the issue, the text of the article stills need to be changed. The statement that Nixon "alluded to his work in college" is unsatisfactory given the facts.

Pat's birthday. Your response is inadequate. As a fib, I agree Nixon's statement is of little significance; but as an objective misstatement of fact, it can't be left as is. Don't imagine that incorrect information in an article is properly handled with an advisory visible only via "edit this page." That's a special function the average reader does not and can not be expected to think about. If you choose to quote an objectively erroneous statement in the article, you must provide the correct information in the article. (In this case, I think it's fine if you want to do it in a footnote, rather than the main text.)

Battle stars. Nixon did earn two battle stars, per a preponderance of sources. Perlstein appears to be wrong.

Accuracy of the "accounting". Of course, no one's claiming that Nixon was a professional accountant. Perlstein's phrasing (without interpolation: "The technical value of the financial accounting that followed was highly debatable") does not make it absolutely clear whether he is referring to Nixon's rather detailed account of his personal financial affairs or to his more general account of the Fund's outlays, or both. In any event, he article currently contains no coverage of opinions about the accuracy and/or veracity of Nixon's account of these financial matters. Quoting a few general opinions about the speech, pro and con, is insufficient. You quote Anderson saying, "I wish he had talked about the 18,000 bucks." That doesn't go the question of accuracy/veracity. (And, of course, Nixon does offer an explanation of how the $18,000 was spent: "to finance items which are not official business but which are primarily political business.")

Supposed press smears. Nixon said, "I remember in the dark days of the Hiss case some of the same columnists, some of the same radio commentators who are attacking me now and misrepresenting my position, were violently opposing me at the time I was after Alger Hiss." Again, the article currently contains no coverage of opinions about the accuracy of Nixon's version of his history with the press, a significant matter. Once again, quoting a few general opinions about the speech, pro and con, is insufficient.

Even beyond these last two points, the Legacy section is still a distance from being comprehensive, and needs to be beefed up. There's a considerable amount of literature that analyzes the speech as a work of rhetoric--within its immediate historical context, within the arc of Nixon's career, and within the general context of American political rhetoric. That literature needs to be addressed. You might start with Garry Wills's Nixon Agonistes, and go from there.

You have, indeed, done a "pretty good job" composing a balanced article. But the article's not done.—DCGeist (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment to DCGeist. Would you consider the possibility that deconstructing the speech further would be going into too much detail? The article is already pretty long, considering it's about one speech. Heck it's almost as long as Gettysburg Address. From my reading, the article appears balanced—it neither glorifies the speech nor casts it as a pack of lies by a political opportunist. I believe that close examination of the veracity of various parts of the speech may be out of scope for this article. We should leave it at telling the reader what he said, providing the context and background, and letting them do further research if they want to deep-dive. --Laser brain (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The article already has two explanatory notes in references (current refs 51 and 57), so I think these issues could be addressed in a footnote or two (and agree that notes in the text itself are not needed). Instead of a hidden comment in the text, a ref footnote could be added after the Pat's a fighter sentence that was something like "Pat Nixon was born Thelma Catherine Ryan on March 16, 1912, and was called "Pat" by her family because her birth date was so close to St. Patrick's Day." (not great, but you get the idea). A similar note could be added after the college and military service sentence, at least mentioning Perlstein's book. Finally I think the author and name of the recent book on Lincoln's supposed quote should be given, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with both of you. However, on the case of the college, I would just leave that be. I did a little research myself. How do you define "work my way through college"? Every cent earned from the job? According to Morris, page 111, as a descendant of Franklin Milhous (his grandfather), he was entitled to draw from a fund left by Milhous to Whittier College for a full tuition scholarship ($250 a year). That still left fees and other expenses for a student living at home averaging $50 a year, in the Depression. I don't know who paid those fees, but Nixon certainly worked in the family grocery store through college (page 122, 139 for example). This was a political speech. It will stand analysis in some ways, and in those ways, mostly political, the article does so. However, like Laserbrain says, you can't analyze every word of it for truthfulness. Are we to analyze for truth his attacks on Stevenson, on Truman? You'd find that they contain as much truth as any political speech. And no more. The other things I will work on and have in this afternoon. Please feel free to alter what I do, never been a big footnote in text man, meself.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
      • The new notes look fine to me, thanks. Having reread the discussion above, the whole Legacy section of the article and the pertinent parts on the speech itself, I do not see the need for a note on Nixon's work to pay for college, or especially on his military service. I also think the Legacy section as written seems sufficient, though I am not a Nixon expert by any means - this is an article on the speech and it seems to me the Legacy section (and the article as a whole) meet WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV and other criteria. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a good article—a very good article—in terms of its description of the speech, but I believe it falls short of our comprehensiveness standard. Length comparisons to our Gettysburg Address article are beside the point—this is the FAC for the Checkers speech article, so let's focus on that. This is one of the most anaylzed speeches in American history, and I don't believe the article at present adequately reflects the analytical literature. For instance, I have agreed that as it pertains to his honesty, Nixon's fib about his wife's birthday falling on St. Patrick's Day is small beans. But why did Nixon bring it up at all? Just to make a point that no quitters could be found in his family, as one would currently gather from the article? Hardly. Conrad Black explains:

This was a straight play for the one-quarter of Americans who were Roman Catholics, most of them habitual Democrats...[though Pat] had never been a Roman Catholic and was in fact an agnostic. (p. 250)

It's analysis such as that of the speech's craft and content that helps the reader understand not just the speech's immediate impact, but why it remains one of the country's most examined political texts.—DCGeist (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And the article has that. We cannot discss every phrase of the speech, therefore as a matter of editorial judgment you have to pick and choose. You have to explain about the dog, for obvious reasons. You need to explain about the coat, at least the origin in Eugene (I restrained myself from mentioning that Nixon was helping Pat on with the now famous coat when Eisenhower bounded on the airplane in Wheeling). We discuss the ones where the reader has to know, or that the writer thinks he should know because it impacts the story. And your points seem to be skew anyway. You want to let the reader know that Nixon hoped to attract the 19 voters nationwide who would select their candidate based on the perceived religion of the Veep candidate's wife. Then you discuss the imact today? That paragraph in the Checkers speech is relevant for exactly one reason. The irony of Nixon saying he was not a quitter, in view of his resignation from the Presidency. That relevance is obvious by inspection by the reader. It is certainly not a lesson example of how to get Roman Catholic votes based on the perceived religion of the Veep candidate's wife.

Lazy people don't do FA's. But I don't agree with you, and feel like your proposed changes would make the article worse, not better. That's just my considered judgment, in which at least two reviewers apparently join.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure how "lazy" suddenly came up here. Though I do have a concern about judgment: You dismissed Perlstein earlier in this thread; you have now as much as stated that your personal analysis of the St. Patrick's Day passage is superior to Black's. There's really nothing more for me to add, except...
• Oppose: Fails 1b—comprehensiveness—for multiple reasons described above. There are related 1c concerns, as well.—DCGeist (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  Comment Perlstein is a questionable source, careless of facts (you yourself pointed out the battle star fiasco), and carelessly researched in my view. There's enough written on the Checkers speech per you that I am entitled to pick and choose, and Wills, which I've read (the part about Checkers anyway) is just a recounting of the speech, with bits of opinion ("the two men never trusted each other again", which flies in the teeth of the heart attack crisis, the Stassen effort to throw Nixon off the ticket in 1956, and also why Nixon was sent to Moscow in 1959). And yes, you have to know your subject to write a FA about a collectively-recalled subject like this, there are tons of details that vary in accounts, and judgment is needed, and I think here has been used appropriately. By the way, have you read the scholarly reviews of Black, or any serious part of the book? He's to be carefully used because he bends over backwards to excuse Nixon. Go on, google "Conrad Black Richard Nixon" and look at the reviews. I use him very cautiously, the one bit about Nixon gaining lifetime supporters through the speech is about it, with inline attribution, and a few factual matters

As for your oppose, that is your privilege, though I would note that your reason you don't think it is comprehensive has slid all over the place since you began engaging in this. I'll leave it to the judgment of the FA director. Simply, there is no way, in an article that is not titled "List of explanations of references by and strategy of Richard Nixon in the Checkers speech", to do what you want.. The article is comprehensive per standard 1b. The oppose is unfortunate, but the opposer hasn't engaged with two reviewers who have told him that the article is fine. Standard 1b says " (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" The article does so, the reviewer seems to want a blow by blow analysis of the Checkers speech which would chop up the article in little bits and make it virtually unreadable. I don't consider the objection actionable for the reasons stated by myself and two other reviewers who have tried to engage, unsuccessfully, with him, and I don't think there's much more to be said myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support: This is a very well-written article and gives a balanced context for its discussion. I agree that further detail about the points raised by DCGeist would obfuscate, more than illuminate, the discussion. Obviously, there is a large body of commentary on the speech and Nixon's claims generally. Our job, in writing WP articles is to choose among secondary sources to present, for the general reader, the most important information about the subject in a format that is of appropriate length for an encyclopedia article. I think the choices that Wehwalt has made here reasonably optimize the reading experience for the WP audience. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:53, 31 May 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 16:40, 2 June 2009 [142].

---

Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I am re-nominating this for featured article. It's a companion piece to two of my existing featured articles on the early history of London's tube lines. It was previously nominated in April, but the nomination was closed unsuccessfully due, I believe, to lack of support. I believe that all previous issues raised were addressed. Images are either self-created, uploaded as attribution sharealike from Flickr or PD due to age. --DavidCane (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support – supported last time and see no reason to change my opinion. – iridescent 19:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/ .. I know we've discussed this before. Mind rehashing the arguments why it satisfies WP:SPS for the other reviewers?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The CULG site gives a comprehensive list of its published sources here plus other, more general, sources here (under sources). I have a number of the books listed in the bibliography (using two of them myself as sources for the article) and have crossed-checked information listed on the site against these without discovering any discrepancies, so it seems fair to conclude that other information is also properly sourced. The information for which the web site is cited in the article is:

1. the length of line in the original form and current condition. I have confirmed these are accurate by:
   • measuring the route on a map
   • checking against distances between stations quoted in chains on a Railway Clearing House map
2. the number of lifts at certain stations - which matches the observable facts.

--DavidCane (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support: An important article in the history of London's transport system, around which topic a decent series of articles is in the making. My one reservation, fully aired at the last FAC, concerned the legibility of some of the text in the charts. This still niggles – but not enough to prevent me supporting. Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Image review: no issues with the images. They are verifiably either self-created (and appropriately licensed) or in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support I share Brianboulton's concern about legibility, but no serious issues other than one (unactionable) abomination - the name change of Gillespie Road station, which surely should be reversed now? ;) jimfbleak (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Still where the away fans for Arsenal FC get off, so keeping the name's at least defensible (since they'll be the ones least likely to look on the map, think "ah, Finsbury Park looks closer", and get hopelessly lost. – iridescent 19:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support, (but with a query, following). Beautifully written, and an interesting and detailed history. This is the first time I have contributed to a FAC review, so I apologise if I'm off base at all. I have a general query about the decision when to provide an inline citation. The referencing appears excellent, but from time to time there is a sentence that contains a substantive fact that does not have an in-line cite. The one that particularly attracted my attention was this: "However, competition from numerous small bus companies during the early 1920s eroded the profitability of the LGOC and had a negative impact on the profitability of the whole UERL group." Is the lack of a cite tag on this sentence because the next tag (which occurs part way through the next para in this case) includes this fact? I have wrestled with this issue with some GA candidates, too. My concern is that a reviewer cannot tell, without going to the source material, whether they should assume a later citation covers a fact in the current sentence, or whether there is actually a problem with a fact not being supported by any ref at all. If the citation in the following para does also cover this fact about bus competition, my comment would be that the reliance of several consecutive sentences on a single cite should not extend across paras. I hope my query makes sense. Any guidance or response? Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:48, 2 June 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 16:40, 2 June 2009 [143].

---

Battle of Ticonderoga (1759)

Nominator(s): Magic♪piano 20:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the third article I've submitted having to do with Fort Ticonderoga. Hopefully, the FA reviewers will smile on this one as well. This action is noteworthy mainly because this year is the 250th anniversary of the event (as it also is of a somewhat more famous battle in the French and Indian War).

The article has passed a GA review, as well as a fairly straightforward MILHIST A-Class review; I've worked since then primarily to tighten the writing. Thank you for taking the time to review. Magic♪piano 20:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments

• I've made some minor changes to the article in addition to these comments below. If there's any problems, don't hesitate to let me know.
  • Comment No problem, it's not my article.
• This might sound silly, but can you use the term "Frenchmen" to define French-Canadians ... or do you not make that distinction that far back?
  • Comment The regular military and the provincial militia in New France were distinct (as they were in the British colonies). On the other hand, I can probably remove that whole distinction in the background paragraph, as it's hardly vital. Done
• The lede mentions "improvements to the area" after the fort's fall, but I don't see any mention of these later in the article. Could you please explain them?
  • Comment Aftermath, second paragraph (roads, construction of Crown Point).
• In the Background section, do you think "broken" is jargon, or should it be clear through inference?
  • Comment I'll change it to "defeated". Done
• I'm a little confused by the starting positions for the 1759 campaign. Fort Ticonderoga is in the United States today, yet it was built by the French in French-controlled territory?
  • Comment I will clarify this. That was the frontier between New York and New France at the time. Done
• Going "north, down Lake Champlain" seems a little awkward; most people (or at least me) don't think of north as down, even though I can grasp what you're saying.
  • Comment I need to communicate that going north is indeed going "down" the lake (i.e. towards its exit), precisely because people don't usually think of "north" as "down". Changed "down" to "on".
• I know you probably don't want to repeat what's written in the Fort Ticonderoga article, but it might be worth pushing the line about why the French built the forts up toward the top of the article and expound a bit on the geography -- why the British had to advance up this route.
  • Comment I'll add some more strategic background. Done, I think.
• When you say "from Pennsylvania to New Hampshire and Massachusetts", this might not be clear to a non-American audience; what colonies this includes isn't obvious.
• Going back to the fourth comment, it's not clear where you're talking about when you mention "frontier forts".
  • Comment Would something like "western frontier forts" be an improvement? (I could also import this map if that would help.)
    • It just goes back to the question about where the border was between British and French claims ... I know the frontier moved gradually westward, but I just don't know where it was at this time. Judging from the map, it appears that it was near the Ohio River. Is that correct? JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I've added the map (it's more useful than the Ti detail map anyway); I trust the language I've added clarifies the territorial situation at the time.
• You've got wikilinks for the British regiments; should the French "La Reine and Berry" regiments get links at least to their namesakes?
  • Comment I don't believe they have pages. The best list currently in WP appears to be here, and even the on are stubby.
• The Commemorations section is a bit barren ... could you add a bit about what's planned? Were there any celebrations for other anniversaries -- 200th, 150th, etc.?
  • Comment Good question. I know the fort was opened to the public in 1909, but the inaugural events marked Champlain's "discovery". I'll have to see if anything obvious turns up for 1959. (The Battle of Carillon is much more likely to have been marked by major events.)
    • The only indications of commemoration in 1959 I've been able to turn up are from news accounts of events celebrating Champlain. (I'd like to extend to section once there are news accounts of this year's events.)

• It's a good article, and I won't mind supporting it for FA. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. Magic♪piano 15:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I've made some updates Magic♪piano 13:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. All my questions have been answered, and the article is clear, concise, and doesn't skip any relevant portion of the subject that I can detect. It's a good article, and I wish the editors luck on the next articles in what I assume is an eventual featured topic. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Image review - File:French and Indian War map.png - The template is not good. We need to know which edition of the Harper's Encyclopedia this image comes from (there are three) and we need to know which volume (there are ten). It would, of course, also be nice to have an author. Did you check the encyclopedia itself? Finally, note that the current license is incorrect. It cannot be 100 years plus the life of the author, since the author is not listed. We either need to find the name of the author and list his/her death date or change the license to PD-1923. Awadewit (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Sourced The image page identifies it as coming from the 1905 edition. I've added a link to the page with the image in Google Books. The license comes from {{Harper's Encyclopedia of US History}}. Magic♪piano 17:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I have now fixed the image information from the Google Books scan (note that this image is from Volume 3, published in 1906). Also, note that since we don't know who the artist is, we cannot use the license that accompanies the template since it claims 100 years plus the life of the author. We have to use the PD-1923 license, which means that the work is in the public domain because it was published before 1923 in the US. I have now added that to the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional support This article appears to be comprehensive to me - it covers all major aspects of the "battle" - and is well-written. I just have a couple of questions below.

• Carillon, located near the southern end of Lake Champlain, occupied a place that was strategic in importance before white men arrived in North America - Could we be more specific about which white men these are? :)
• to lead an army into Canada by going north on Lake Champlain - "along Lake Champlain" or "across Lake Champlain"?

Once the image issue is resolved, I will support. Awadewit (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll clarify these. (I assume you'd rather have it say something like "Europeans" than "white men"?) Magic♪piano 17:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we know specifically which Europeans? More specificity is better - French? Spanish? British, etc. Awadewit (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I trust my last edit is specific enough? (I've also changed "going north on" to "sailing north on"; I don't like "along" because it could imply "beside", and I don't like "across" because the lake's geography implies to me a crossing of the short dimension.) Magic♪piano 19:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good! Awadewit (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Query Is there a reason why these really old sources are being cited (especially with respect to factual items such as statistics/dates)? Seems like a safer route would be to verify these statements against more modern sources. BuddingJournalist 01:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Some of the force numbers in this, especially those of the militias, were maddeningly difficult to track down. Part of this is due to the relative unimportance of this event in 1759, as it was overshadowed by the Quebec action, but also most modern treatments of the war just don't seem to give things like the militia numbers (note that I've been unable to locate actual numbers for the militia contributions of Pennsylvania, Connecticut, or Rhode Island). The infobox numbers are all sourced to fairly recent works.
  • I also have a slight bias toward placing citations in Internet-readable sources, especially if something is relatively uncontroversial. Magic♪piano 04:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support and query I can't see any major issues, but I don't like the forced image size for File:Ticonderoga attack plan2.jpg. This overrides user preferences, and the whole point of thumbnails is that you can click on them for tthe full-size image. jimfbleak (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I was actually motivated to improve this article (which was fairly stubby) in part by Durova's work on that map (which is a Featured Picture). In my opinion it is only usable if displayed somewhat larger. With the larger size at least some detail is more visible. This is just my opinion, of course; if consensus otherwise seems to prefer default sizing, I'm OK with that. (Thanks for your support!) Magic♪piano 15:13, 1 June 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 16:40, 2 June 2009 [144].

---

Battle of Vimy Ridge

Nominator(s): Labattblueboy (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the article, as it stands, is likely the best and most widely cited piece of work on the subject currently on the internet. As it stands, the article has involved over a year of research and review and cites 33 separate pieces of work, most of which are academically reviewed. It has been through GA, A-class level reviews as well as a peer review. Every attempt has been made to deliver a fair perspective of the battle, a difficult task with the cultural attachments Canada has made to the battle. Labattblueboy (talk) 04:29, 8 May 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. done
• Current ref 108 (Gibbs..) has the author and publisher run into the link title. Please separate them out to match your other web links.done'
• What makes http://www.durandgroup.org.uk/Vimy_Ridge.htm a reliable source?

The Durand Group is an archaeological and research group. They are an authority figure on First World War underground warfare and the principal authority for underground warfare at Vimy Ridge. Any source talking about underground warfare either makes reference to their work or have directly consulted them in producing it. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I changed your done templates to done as the use of graphics and templates is discouraged at FAC. (You can only put so many templates on a page before the page goes belly up... we've done it in the past.) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment
• Reference 55 does not work (it does not go down to the proper book at the bottom of the page) done

Corrected Tucker citation, apparently the reference had not previously been included. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Many of the ISBNs under "References" are not linked. Go through and link the ones that aren't. Mm40 (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC) done

I only found two with issues (Farr and Wynne refs). Don't believe any others lacking ISBNs have one and verified such through isbndb.com. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Ashworth in refs but not notes; ditto Ross. A much bigger problem is that four authors (Boire, Cook, Godefroy and Sheldon) have more than one book in the refs, but no attempt was made in the notes to specify which of the books by a given author was being cited. This absolutely must be fixed. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC) done

Ashworth, Ross and the Sheldon/Cave have been removed. All citation already link to the proper book through the footnote inline links. I have nevertheless added the year and in the Godefroy case, year + a & b.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support

• Non-breaking spaces missing between numbers and following text

I'm not putting nbsp after every number and following text, that's ridiculous. It's been done for distances, quantities in the millions and for time. I have not and will not go through the trouble of adding them for when it comes to qunatities (such as number of men, aircraft, squadrons, artillery pieces, ect) under one million, units or formation names or dates. It's a military article full of figures, there is going to be end-of-line displacement. --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Your call, however I think you'll find some folks may have a different opinion of this.

• en-dash should be used for page number ranges

Done and done. It had been done earlier but looks like it got undone somewhere along the line. --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Passive voice used in a number of places where active might be better largely complete completed

Examples please. --Labattblueboy (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• "formal assault plan was adopted..." done
• "Canadian divisions were to be assembled "
• "Canadian divisions were joined by the British " done
• "once a salient of considerable German resistance was overcome" done
• "Byng had been formally presented with orders" done

(+others)

Significant decrease in the number of passive voice examples, particularly those employing "was" or "were" and, to a lesser extent, "had". Those that seem to work best as passive voice have been left as such. --Labattblueboy (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• You should consider adding conversion templates for km distances done
• "To logistically manage" = split infinitive; also a fragmented sentence that could probably be structured a little better done

Changed to: "The Canadian Corps was allocated three times the artillery normally assigned to a corps for regular operations.[5] To manage the logistics associated with the increased artillery, Royal Artillery staff officer Major Alan Brooke developed coordinated communication and transport plans to work in conjunction with the complex barrage plans" --Labattblueboy (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Artillery" section - too many sentences starting with "To..."? done

you are very right. I think this has now been largely corrected. --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Mines" is not linked in the article done

In the Background section, mines is not linked to Mining (military) and in the Underground operations section, underground warfare is linked to tunnel warfare. --Labattblueboy (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Time should include a time zone no action needed

ahhh, I have never a) heard this request before or b) seen use of time zones in an FA class military article. I don't really see what the benefit is in including it. So unless required by a editorial consensus I am going to pass on action this item. --Labattblueboy (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Mentioned it because I saw this usage in another FAC recently, however I don't know if it's required so let's leave it at that.

• "four hundred eighty", "one hundred thirty-eight" etc - use digits for numbers per WP:MOSNUM no action needed

As per WP:MOSNUM, adjacent quantities which are not comparable should usually be in different formats. one hundred thirty-eight 4.5 inch howitzers works better than 138 4.5 inch howitzers --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• In the aftermath, can the bullet points be phrased as text?

It will end up being a long sequence within a sentence and will certainly not read very well as plain text. Although I know MoS generally frowns on embedded lists, I believe the current presentation works a bit better. --Labattblueboy (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you should take another look at this.

I took another look at this and tried the edit in sandbox. In my view it doesn't work as clean readible text unless the units formation names is removed. This would be no big deal for the Canadian medal winners as I suspect the info is on their respective articles but it would be detremental for the German side. Thoughts? --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• "A 250 acres portion..." - "A 250 acre portion..."? done

Since it’s an adjective “acre” (no "s") is correct. --Labattblueboy (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed one more

• What did the memorial cost to build in today's money (See the {{Inflation}} template)

No idea. I don't think the parameters of the inflation template were designed for such an example. Canadian government funds were allocated and spent over no less than an 11 year period and you can be certain the funds were not allocated in a straight-line fashion. Construction takes place over the Canadian Great Depression, a period that included both inflation and deflation. Calculating the inflation rate would certainly not be easy. There is no Canadian central bank until 1935 so if calculating through interest rates you'd have to find the historical interest rates from the Bank of Montreal (the gov't banker the time). If calculating via CPI which do you use, Canadian for French. There are too many fluctuating factors and unknowns for me to feel comfortable making this estimate. An accurate result would require primary research. --Labattblueboy (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Mutiple references should be consolidated, e.g. "Granatstein p. 113" done

I think that one was a fluke, didn't see any other than the Granatstein p. 113 --Labattblueboy (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Humphries pp. 73-76
• Samuels pp. 200-202

• Fragmented sentence

• "The town of Thélus and, after overcoming considerable German resistance, the crest of the ridge fell during the second day" done

changed to: "The town of Thélus fell to the Canadian Corps during the second day of the attack, as did the crest of the ridge once a salient of considerable German resistance was overcome."

• Split infinitive: "to properly apply" done

corrected --Labattblueboy (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Inconsistent use of past tense (e.g. "The Battle of Vimy Ridge was a military engagement fought as part of the Battle of Arras" vs "In May 1916, Byng had been formally presented with orders")

• Consistent use of regional English (e.g. "recognized" vs "recognised"; "color" vs "colour")

This one is a continuous battle but I believe I have caught them all. Please review. done --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• "totaling" vs "totalling" (totalling) done

• You should take a look at the POV- the article is written from a Canadian perspective, with "the enemy" implicitly German in a number of locations. (i.e. The Canadians were the enemy too, from the German's perspective) done

Where relevant, I have gone through and replaced enemy with a nationality. Other suggestions?

• Weasel words: "Often this belief is specifically anchored on the Canadian victory at Vimy Ridge" done

Re-written, expanded and citation given. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Missing access dates for : "All of Vimy Ridge Cleared of Germans", "Official History of the Canadian Army...", "Here at Vimy..." done
• Incomplete sentence: "However, only after they had run out of ammunition, mortars rounds and grenades." done

combined with previous sentence.

• "Influence on Canada" - the wording in section needs some tightening up, as I feel it's too flowery for an encyclopedia. in progress done

I'm not sure that can be done, it's a cultural influence summary which essentially makes it a POV nightmare. --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have re-written the section. I have done my best to improve its objectivity. I am welcome any suggestions you may have on improving this section. It's a tricky one. --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Copyvio - the word-for-word unquoted text I found in the "Influence on Canada" section is a concern for me at the moment - are there any other parts of the text like this? done

Removed offending text. How would you suggest I proceed in replacing it or would that not be necessary. --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

My concern is not over this sentence, which if duely quoted presents no problem, but rather that there may be other text like this elsewhere in the article. I don't know the history of who contributed what, but it might be worth checking the additions of the editor who added that text if it was not you.

• "The main combatants were the Canadian Corps against three divisions of the German Sixth Army" - should you not state that 70,000 of the Canadian Corps was not Canadian? no action needed

It is indirectly stated in the Strategic planning section. The number of Canadians is noted rather than the number of non-Canadians --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've probably not explained myself very well - someone reading the introduction would not necessary be aware that only 58% of the Canadian Core was Canadian ("The main combatants were the Canadian Corps against three divisions of the German Sixth Army") i.e. it was not simply Canadian vs Germans. PS: Please don't strike out my comments.

My apologies, striking your comments was not meant to me malicious just organizational, I will stop doing so. I don't really see the percentage of Canadians in the corps being of central importance to the basic description of the battle. This being said, I have gone through the article and removed any reference to "Canadians" or "Canadian troops" and replaced them with "Canadian Corps" or appropriate unit/formation name to help remove any national possessiveness but I can't help that the name of the formation is the Canadian Corps.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• "The heavy preliminary artillery bombardments of the Canadian Corps ahead of their own offensive ultimately prevented the Germans from executing their pre-emptive attack" - I'm not sure in this sentence who did the bombing... done

shortened and simplified.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've read that the attack was initially planned for Sun 8 April, but delayed for a day over concerns about the barbed wire not being cleared. Is there a way to incorporate this information?

I do believe the entire arras offensive was pushed by a day, but I don't know when that was decided or for what purpose. Most of the material I have been dealing with makes no mention of it though. --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC) done

Take a look at the link in my comment above

The link offered no information as to why it was delayed or when that decision was taken. However, I have found an appropriate and will include citation and text in the April 9 section.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Have you considered using this image of the memorial, which seems to fit better with the timeline and text in the article? done

It's a good image but it doesn't show the memorial as a whole. I'm not really of a strong opinion of one image or the other though and would not oppose an image change here. --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Why is there no mention at all of Arthur Currie, who appears to have been involved closely with the French lectures about Verdun, the development of Canadian tactics used in the assault and who in 1917 became the first Canadian commander of the Canadian Corps? done

There was no particular reason for the omission. Some histories have sought to overemphasize Currie's involvement in the planning for some very obvious Canadian nationalistic purposes but that certainly isn't reason for omitting him either. I am working on incorporating additional points of information. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added Currie's influence in the developing the assault plan and his contribution via his post-Verdun lecture. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - in my view, this engaging and well-written article satisfies the FA criteria. I cannot comment on the comprehensiveness because this is not a subject I know much about. I have made a few minor edits to the prose, [145], please check that I have not introduced any errors of fact. Graham Colm ^Talk 14:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Image concern as follows:

• File:Vimy Ridge 1917-barrage map.jpg: from where comes the claim that this was by the 1st Field Survey Company, Royal Engineers and thus an Ordnance Survey map?

The map is marked as being produced by the 1st Field Survey Company, Royal Engineers on the bottom left by the Canadian Corps boundary line. Base maps were largely produced by the Ordnance Survey (OS). This being said, the supplementary work to the base map could make it a Canadian crown copyright issue. "British-Canadian Military Cartography on the Western Front, 1914-1918" by Jeffery Murray in Archivaria 26 (Summer 1988) offers some good detail on the history. So I would say, OS w/ Canadian crown copyright should about cover it. The source archive does not list any restrictions so I feel pretty safe is saying it's public domain. --Labattblueboy (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt the 1st Field Survey Company is Canadian. The map, supplied to the Canadian Corps, is British work (OS and military)—hence UK Crown Copyright. Marked as such. Jappalang (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Good call. To be honest I hadn't thought of the UK Crown copyright and you're right it would be more appropriate. --Labattblueboy (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Other Images are verifiably in public domain, the above might become a concern (note: the issue is regarding verifiability). Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Support - well written, well-sourced, and an excellent source of information. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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