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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:16, 7 July 2009

July 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 Karanacs 22:16, 7 July 2009 [1].

Bedřich Smetana

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside the Czech Republic, Smetana is thought of as a minor composer; in his homeland he is regarded as a giant. His life's struggles are reflected in the troubled visage that watches us from the pages of the article. Fascinating music, fascinating man; I hope I've done him justice. Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Remarkably good, given the huge number of images. I was hoping (well, not really hoping) to trip you up with File:Göteborg.jpg, on the basis that the copyright status of the statue isn't addressed on the page, but Sweden's freedom of panorama laws seem to make this unnecessary. The only issue that I could actually find was with File:Praha Barricades 1848.jpg, which claims to be in the public domain on the basis that the author has been dead for at least 70 years, but which does not seem to include any author information. In any event, it was published before 1923, so it's in the public domain in the United States on that basis; might you consider either changing the tag or recording author information? Mind you, the 1848 publication date makes it virtually certain that the author has been deceased for at least 70 years. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 1848 date is the basis for the assertion that the author has been dead for at least 70 years. If it was from 1880 onwards, the 70 year pma might come into dispute, but publishing in 1840s is a certainty for PD by age. Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's reasonable. Do we have that 1880 rule codified somewhere (or is that in "real" law, instead of Wikipedia policy?)? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should clarify: "1880" is not a rule or law. It is a general "guideline" (more of common sense), inspired from somewhere in one of the Commons talk pages. Basically the assumption is that a 20-year old created the work at the date of creation and he died at the age of 70—an allowance of 120 years since creation is likely enough for such a young creator to have passed away more than 70 years ago. A stricter allowance is 140 years (which I tend to follow in my search for images); hence, any image created earlier than 1860–70 could qualify for PD-Old, anything later than that would deserve some investigation. Jappalang (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image comment - Images look good, file:Praha_Barricades_1848.jpg contains a lot of detail in a very small space, and none of it is clear as displayed, it may be better to choose a single frame, as a single image Fasach Nua (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a single panel is used, the lower right corner appears to be on the Charles Bridge, where Smetana was during 1848. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have switched to the Charles Bridge panel; thanks to both of you for the suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -
~~Sources that are in languages other than English need to have that language noted in the reference~~

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(in Czech) added appropriately. Brianboulton (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This was already a fine article when I read it for peer review. Since then it has become even better, with many small gaps in knowledge filled and the writing improved still further. This article offeres a very full portrait of Smetana as both artist and person, highlighting much about his importance that I had not known beforehand while remaining very reader-friendly overall as a document. One point: this a long article but needs to be to include everything covered here, since Smetana lived such a rich life and did as much for his country as he did; however, the article reads much shorter than it actually is because it has been paced extraordinarily well, and I do not know how it could be shortened without doing harm to it. Overall, this is an excellent job and does represent the finest Wikipedia has to offer—well done. Jonyungk (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those comments and for your help during the PR process. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I also peer reviewed this and found one of the images on Flickr (and cropped it to the version used here). I think this fully meets all of the FA criteria and is an interesting and informative read too. Is there any sort of convention on how to name musical works? My only quibble is that some works use the Czech name with English translation following (i.e. Ma Vlast), others only the English translation (i.e. Triumphal symphony, The Bartered Bride). My guess is that the most common name in English is used in each case. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. I have indeed used the names by which the compositions are best-known in the English-speaking world. This includes Ma vlast, which is never to my knowledge performed as "My Fatherland"; I included the translation to give its meaning, not to indicate a title in use. There is a link to a list of Smetana's compositions, and this gives Czech titles for each work. Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Works for me - thanks for explaining that, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Is there a relevant infobox that could be included? Also, I'm not sure if this is required or not for FAC, but could {{Persondata}} be added? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usually infoboxes are not recommended for classical composers. Jonyungk (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article follows the practice adopted on all the major classical composer biographies - see those for Bach, Beethoven, Handel, Mozart, Tchaikowsky, Wagner etc. There is no FAC requirement for infoboxes. Brianboulton (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific reason why classical composers are the exception to all other biographies (from what I've seen) for not requiring an infobox? I'm just curious as to why one type of group doesn't need an infobox when the vast majority of biographies do. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero requirement in the MOS (or FAC) for an infobox. Joseph Priestley and John Knox are non-composer biography FAs without infoboxes, for example. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For further clarification, see WP:Wikiproject Composers: "Current consensus among project participants holds that the use of currently-available biographical infoboxes is often counterproductive on composer biographies. They should not be used without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page. This position is in line with that reached by the participants at the Classical Music Project and the Opera Project." I suggest that further discussion of this topic be taken there. Brianboulton (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just curious, thanks for the clarification. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: it would be bad form if I did not support after subjecting Brian through much hassles at the peer review. He has admirably resolved many concerns and polished the article from this to its current state, keeping in mind every criteria a Featured Article is supposed to be. I believe the article deserves the bronze star. Jappalang (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. For the record, your so-called "hassles were part of an exemplary peer review, and if this article is eventually promoted, much of the credit should go to you. Brianboulton (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Support: It was a great surprise when I saw Smetana as a FAC. I fixed the spelling of few Czech names and I think it meets the criteria. Before I support, I would like one issue to be fixed: The "naming" of Smetana's ancestry. "Bohemia" is a region in today's Czech Republic and at the time of Smetana's life (before the official formation of Czech Rep.), it was part of the Czech lands (the historical name of Czech Republic - the same territory). This could be compared to Bavaria (or any other region) in Germany - Bavaria existed in its form even before Germany itself was formed. The article uses frequently the word "Czech" (in association with the culture etc.), says that Smetana was "Bohemian", but does not explain the relation. "Bohemia(n)" is mentioned only in the lead and in the first paragraph of the first section. I think that it is a bit confusing and therefore should be fixed. There are two possibilities:

In the lead section and in the "Family background and childhood" section, we add "(today's Czech Republic)" behind the "Bohemia(n)", or
We change the first sentence to "Bedřich Smetana was a Czech composer...". A reason for this possibility is that Bohemia was a region in the actual Czech lands. For example Goethe was born in the region Hesse, but is still called a German polymath. He was born in Holy Roman Empire and died in German Confederation (Deutscher Bund), a loose league of 39 sovereign states. The second reason is that the nationalities of today's states are usually used for historical persons (even if the name of the region was different). Examples are even Renaissance Michelangelo or Leonardo da Vinci, who lived in Roman Empire, but are called Italian. On the top of this, in the Czech language, there is no difference between (/only one word for both) "Bohemian" and "Czech".-- LYKANTROP ✉ 13:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope the surprise at finding Smetana at FAC was a pleasant one. Thank you for correcting several Czech spellings; some of these errors were my own carelessness, others were due to some inconsistencies in the English language sources. On your point about Bohemian/Czech, I have adopted the second of your suggestions above - does this satisfy? Brianboulton (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The article seems to be solid now.

...Of course it was a pleasant surprise! The article is excellent. Enjoyable to read, informative, balanced and neutral.

Although compared to, lets say Beethoven's symphony no.9, Smetana's works may seem a bit "subtle", I really enjoy some of them :) Cheers-- LYKANTROP ✉ 18:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:16, 7 July 2009 [2].

Matthew Boulton

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... this is an article I'm bringing along quickly in the hopes of having it be TFA for the celebrations of Boulton on the 200th anniversary of his death, and I think it meets the criteria, based on my experience. I am nomming it quickly (not my usual practice) in the hopes of having time to regroup if there's a problem. However, I think it meets the criteria and should pass once I vacuum up all the sawdust!Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose on criterion 3~~

File:Anglesey 1790 Rev 400 (1).jpg - This needs to go through OTRS. Chris Leather's letter needs to be sent to permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org and a ticket number established for the image, etc.

~~File:Cartwheelrev.jpg - This needs to go through OTRS. Chris Leather's letter needs to be sent to permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org and a ticket number established for the image, etc.~~

~~File:Swordvanda.jpg - I don't see any evidence for this being released under GFDL or CC on the V&A website. Since this is a 3D object, the copyright is owned by the photographer.~~

Hopefully these can be resolved soon. I look forward to reading the article! Awadewit (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris sent the letter yesterday. How does the ticket get established? I will delete the sword image, we can make do without it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he sent it to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org. That is what it said to do in the instructions, which we followed to the letter ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the "OTRS pending" tag. OTRS sets up the ticket number. All should be set in motion now. We just wait. Awadewit (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How long does it usually take? And how do we know when OTRS sets up the ticket number? And I imagine we can proceed with the FAC otherwise in the interim?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Around a week or so. Or you could find a nice OTRS volunteer who will jump the queue for you. The number will appear on the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do they take credit cards?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cash only. Awadewit (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked User:Cirt to look at it. He's got so much experience doing FAC's, I'm hoping he'll give me a trade discount.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another volunteer took care of it, so the photo issues should be resolved. Note that I added a photo to the article and asked your opinion on another, details on your talk page, Awadewit, and then added another one, File:Wilkinsontoken.jpg, which is OTRS pending. Since it is a "twofer", both a Boulton work and shows someone discussed in the article, it's worth the delay. My thanks to Chris Leather of sohomint.info for his images and his careful reading of what I wrote about Boulton's mint and its works to make sure they are accurate (general sources tend to make technical mistakes as we all know)--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at my talk page. Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS issues are now resolved for all three images, and I've asked Awadewit to strike the oppose, which I'm sure she will, at least on image grounds.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Basically good. However, I did spot (and correct) a couple of silly copy-editing errors, which makes me wonder if there aren't some more that I missed. The science is accurate, and in the correct proportion for the length and subject of the article: non-specialist readers might appreciate a few more glosses and wikilinks. I can't see a reason to oppose, but I'd like more eyes on the article before I can fully support. Physchim62 (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support after passage of the vacuum cleaner(s). Physchim62 (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Mattisse if she is willing to copyedit, and also requested help from the Wikiprojects. You are correct, I did misspell "or moulu" as "or muolo", and I apologize. But otherwise I think the many eyes that will look this article over during the FAC will be sufficient to the day. C'est l'vie.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've gone through it with a spell-checker and made some minor corrections. Is "inspring" in the block quote at the end of this section a sic, or should it be "inspiring"? I'll look through the rest later before supporting, but think this woiuld make a good TFA for August. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 06:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is my typo. My bad. I corrected it. By the way, Mattisse has copyedited quite a bit now. I think most of the sawdust is gone now.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the lead scetion has "Boulton expanded the business" twice in successive sentences. Can this be re-written in some way? — Tivedshambo (t/c) 10:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Much improved. Still haven't got through it in full detail, but Support on what I've seen so far. Incidentally, if you need any photos taken in the Birmingham area to help improve this article, let me know. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 21:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am naturally pleased to see an article about Boulton. I haven't read it properly, yet, but I stumbled over the second paragraph of the lead. I like reading my name, but...six repeats in close proximity is a bit of an overdose. In fact, I thought this whole paragraph could be written more smoothly, cutting the repeats and avoiding the slightly awkward reference to "the manufacturer". Would you consider this, as an alternative:-

Boulton was born in 1728, the son of a Birmingham manufacturer of small metal products who died when Boulton was 31. By then the younger Boulton had managed the business for several years, and had expanded it considerably, consolidating operations at the Soho Manufactory, which he built near Birmingham. At Soho, Boulton adopted the latest techniques, branching into silver plate, ormolu and other decorative arts. He became associated with James Watt when Watt's business partner, John Roebuck, was unable pay a debt to Boulton, who accepted Roebuck's share of Watt's patent as settlement. He then successfully lobbied Parliament to extend Watt's patent for an additional seventeen years, which enabled the firm to develop the steam engine, hundreds of which were installed in Britain and abroad.

Am reading on and will comment further. Brianboulton (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll insert that. I figured you'd be interested but feared letting you know might be considered canvassing and figured you'd find it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agree with Brianboulton that use of "the manufacturer" for Boulton is a "slightly awkward reference". I think I spied its use elsewhere and suggest replacing it.

Also suggest rewording of too many "which"s eg "which enabled the firm to develop the steam engine, hundreds of which were installed in Britain and abroad."

—Mattisse (Talk) 12:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at the which's (Eastwick?). As for the manufacturer, if I simply call him "Boulton" all the time, I'll get a complaint about the monotony. Any ideas for an alternate term besides "manufacturer"?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not specifically. Just skillful use of wording, such as Brianboulton used in his sample paragraph above. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. The article no longer uses "manufacturer" in the place of the word "Boulton". From now on, I'm sticking to people whose professions are at most two syllables, and whose towns of residence make for easy adjectives, unlike this Brummy. I got rid of about half the "which"'s by the way, not including those in quotes. I think the remaining ones are the best usages.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: I have ploughed on to the end of the "Expansion of the business" section and have found numerous prose glitches, none of them in themselves particularly serious but all needing attention or consideration – and there are rather a lot of them.

Background
- Suggest an appropriste link on "coke", to distinguish the fuel from illegal substances or fizzy drinks.
- Some brief description of the role of "Chancellor of Lichfield" would be useful.
Early and family life
- "The elder Boulton's business continued to prosper after young Matthew's birth,..." We have not established that it was prospering previously. Suggest: "The elder Boulton's business prospered after young Matthew's birth,..."
- "...on the other side of the city from Snow Hill." Last three words redundant.
- A bit of information missing? He left school at 15 and at 17 invented an inlaying technique. So, where did he get the technical know-how to do this? Did he go to work in his father's workshops? Was he trained by his father, was he self-taught? Was this the first inkling of inventiveness on his part? It could be an interesting part of the story.
- "Though his son signed business letters "from father and self", he was effectively running the business by the mid-1750s;" I would suggest a slight rewording and reordering: "Though the son signed business letters "from father and self", by the mid-1750s he was effectively running the business;"
Expansion of the business
- The thumbnail image is so small as to lose most of its presentational value. I think that this is a case where it would be OK to force to a size consistent with most other images in the article.
- "came into full control" - save words, use active voice: "...assumed full control..."
- "He spent much of his time travelling and away in London to promote his wares." Doesn't read smoothly. My suggestion: "He spent much of his time in London and elsewhere, promoting his wares." or: "He spent much of his time promoting his wares in London and elsewhere."
- More awkwardness: "He arranged to have a friend present Prince Edward with a sword." This form of words leads to an "a sword. The sword..." combination which is avoidable. "He arranged for a friend to present a sword to Prince Edward. This sword..."
- It will not be known by everyone, especially non-Brits, that George, Prince of Wales was the future King George III. All I can suggest, and it's a bit clumsy, I know, is: "The sword so interested the Prince's older brother, George, Prince of Wales (later King George III) that the future king ordered one for himself."
- I have divided the first paragraph at the change of topic "With capital accumulated..."
- "From 1766 until his 1809 death, Matthew Boulton lived at Soho House; in 1783, his wife Anne was stricken suddenly with an apparent stroke and died there." The first part of the sentence has over-repetition from the previous sentence. The second part has "stricken ... with a stroke" How about: "Matthew Boulton lived there until his death in 1809; in 1783 his wife Anne suffered a sudden stroke and died there."
- "13 acres" and "thirteen acres" both used. Consistency is required.
- Non-breaking spaces required (13 acres, 19 wide bays, etc – probably others through the article).
- "The manufactory was advanced for its time and came with a large price tag." This whole sentence seems unnecessary. The previous sentence has told us that the manufactory was advanced, and the following sentence tells us the size of the price tag.
- "The total costs were not equal to the partners' means" I think it's the other way round - the partners' means were not equal to the total cost.
- "He wrote in 1771..." Need to clarify that "he" was Boulton (long time since last mention)
- "...in 1780, he would have nearly a half million silver items hallmarked." Should this be "by 1780", or was half-a-million the year's total?
- I think this sentence needs to be redrafted to make it more comprehensible to the ordinary reader: "The silver business proved not to be profitable due to the opportunity cost of keeping capital tied up in the inventory." Thus: "The silver business proved to be unprofitable, due to the extent of capital tied up in slow-moving stock." (or some such)
- "entrusted ... trusted" - avoidable repetition (consigned, made over, etc instead of "entrusted"?)
- Next line: "sell items ... sell items" - rephrase to avoid repetition.
- Use of the noun "quality" to describe the nobility is a little archaic, and could be misunderstood. Suggest use an alternative term
- "...the Empress described them..." "Them" is inappropriate here, since in this sentence you are referring to "it", namely the unsold stock. Thus it should be "...the Empress described the vases..."
- "poor or orphaned boys who he felt he could train..." "Who" or "whom"? God knows.
- "to mechanically reproduce" - split infinitives are frowned on in Brit Eng; in this instance we would probably say "in the mechanical reproduction of..." I'll leave that one for you.

Would it help if, instead of continuing to go through the article in this way, I copyedited the rest of it? That would I am sure produce a much shorter list of points, and would probably save a lot of time. Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free For quality, perhaps "upper class"? I've implemented your proposed changes, though I changed some of the wording. Thanks for the help! --Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I have copyedited up to the "Later life, death and memorials" section, and I think the prose is improved, but perhaps others should judge that. The first paragraph of the "Later life..." section I find a bit confusing, what with retirements, semi-retirements, and sons with the same names as their fathers. I have redrafted it (see below). Do you agree this wording is clearer (refs not included)?

With the expiry of the patent in 1800, both Boulton and Watt retired from the partnership, turning over their roles to their respective sons. The younger Boulton and Watt pairing made changes, quickly ending public tours of the Soho Manufactory in which the elder Boulton had taken pride throughout his time in Soho. In retirement, Matthew Boulton remained active, continuing to run the Soho Mint; when a new Royal Mint was built on Tower Hill in 1805, Boulton was awarded the contract to equip it with modern machinery, despite his increasing age and infirmity. His level activity distress his former partner Watt, who had entirely retired from Soho, and who had written to Boulton in 1804, "[Y]our friends fear much that your necessary attention to the operation of the coinage may injure your health".

Other than this, I think the article is looking solid. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented that suggestion, somewhat modified because the language about the sons is rather clunky. Fortuitously, it was Watt's only surviving son as well, and thus shorter language is possible without ambiguity or confusion. I assume "level activity distress" is a typo and not a Britishism I'm unfamiliar with, I rephrased that, and also changed "had written" to "wrote", since all these things are really happening more or less simultaneously. If it looks solid, between you, Mattisse, and Amandajm, I think all the sawdust is gone and this article is in excellent condition, and I'm hoping to pick up some support votes.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: OK, you've got mine. Boulton for the main page! Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chancellor of Lichfield: I've piped to Chancellor (ecclesiastical)
Enamel buckles: Both Uglow and Smiles tell the same story, without explanation. Real solid information about Boulton premarriage seems to be a bit thin on the ground. Smiles says that Boulton left school early to go into his father's business. Honestly, I have no doubt that his father took his only surviving son into the workshops from toddler age, and that the kid got few options in the career choice area!
Silver production: Deleted. It looks like Uglow was combining figures for silver, and for Sheffield plate. It did seem rather high for a business he was losing interest in...--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a little go at the first paragraph, to summarise the considerable importance of this key figure of the Industrial Revolution, a term which needed to be mentioned, but wasn't. I hope that it meets with your approval. Amandajm (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite good, I made a slight change, I said "began the transformation" of British industry to fit with the discussion in the Lunar Society section and the quote from Uglow.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current state of the first paragraph is a good summary. Amandajm (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.~~

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch, totally overlooked that. I just struck that ref, there is no need for a cite for Boulton's date of death for the lede (it is cited later in the article, though).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wedgwood association. I've just added a couple of sentences. These little steel mounts that he made were one of the most enduring products, and are signiificant in showing a successful commercial link between two important companies. Can you please determine whether I have put the info where you want it? It was a bit difficult but I thought that it linked well to the idea of producing goods for the "not so rich" (like Sheffield plate, before the intro to the next section about the wealthy market. Amandajm (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I think those would have been OK there were it not for the fact that it's a very long paragraph, so I moved your language two paragraphs later, actually to a more prominent spot. I also expanded your bare reference.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's great. Love the quote. But I think it's now badly placed. I agree that tagging it on the very long parag. is too much. But I think that the products need to be kept together, and the paragraph about employment put after them. Amandajm (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've played around with it. Hope you now feel the article is FA worthy.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This article has come around nicely with the copy editing help above. Quite interesting to read. Well done! —Mattisse (Talk) 19:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four supports at least one of which was a thorough review (two, really I think, Mattisse did her usual great copyedit job on this), no opposes, image check done, technical check done, all in order. It's looking good. Should it be promoted, I suggest the category "Business, economics, and finance" though it would certainly fit in "Engineering and technology".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - after my long association with a certain well-known engine, I'm really happy that you have done such a good job here. Amandajm (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment make that five supports. It was a situation where the work had to be done, and someone had to do it. But since I am not a technical person, and although I have numismatic interests, they do not fall in the area of Boulton's work, I couldn't have done it to a high standard without your help on the engines and Chris' on the coins.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment In "Expansion of the business": The sales succeeded in introducing his works to the quality, but were not successful financially, with many works left unsold or sold below cost. doesn't make sense to me. Can it be clarified? --RexxS (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the sales were heavily attended, both by the wealthy (who were given a day to come unhindered by the hoi polloi), and by the public. They simply didn't sell very much, though Boulton was highly praised for his work. I will rephrase.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand it much better now - I didn't make the connection of "the quality" as a synonym for "the wealthy". A very small stylistic point: the text now has three "the sales" in two sentences - why not retain the former formulation "but were not successful financially" since the subject is inferred from the first half of the sentence? --RexxS (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to get "the quality" out of there. It is really not the best phrase. But I'll rephrase.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've made a good improvement. Thank you. --RexxS (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards support

Images: Checked above. It would be nice to have more images of items that Boulton made. I've tried to find someone who can go to Birmingham and obtain such images (see Talk:Matthew Boulton). We'll see if that works out.

Sources: Sources are reliable and the article appears to cover the major works on Boulton's life. I did some searching around for more Boulton biographies and these appear to be the major ones. Interestingly, Boulton is often mentioned in passing in a lot of books about the industrial revolution. There are fewer individual books devoted to him, which brings me to my next point.

Comprehensiveness: His partnership, formed in 1775, with the engineer James Watt began the transformation of British industry through the installation of hundreds of Boulton & Watt steam engines, a driving force behind the Industrial Revolution. - This sentence appears in the lead, however it was not entirely clear to me in the article how pivotal Boulton was in the industrial revolution while reading the article. I think that a bit more needs to be added, perhaps to the end of the article, about Boulton's contribution to the industrial revolution.

Prose: The organization and transitions between paragraphs in "Scientific studies and Lunar Society" and "Other activities" was not effective. The Lunar Society is mentioned several times before it is explained in the article. More serious, however, is that each new paragraph, particularly in the "Other activities" section, is a startlingly new topic. The paragraphs need to flow together better. Finally, the paragraph about Boulton's children seems a bit tacked on. Is there any way to integrate information about his family into the article a bit better? Does it really have to be part of "Other activities"?

I thoroughly enjoyed reading the article and I look forward to being able to support it soon. Awadewit (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The language in the lede had been added by Amandajm in the course of this FAC. I feel a bit pinned between reviewers, but in view of the Uglow quote, I'm going to tone it back. I'll work on your other points. I should note we do have photos of Boulton made objects, the coins and tokens, as well as the steam engine. But yes, it would be nice to have photos of decorative arts. Hopefully, you'll agree with me that this need not hold up promotion. Check back shortly.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While Boulton is not responsible for the industrial revolution, he did help "drive" it - that is accurate according to the industrial revolution scholarship I've read. I think that to address this point, you will need to consult materials about the industrial revolution rather than materials about Boulton. I don't think that the missing decorative arts images should hold up the FAC, but I do think that we should attempt to obtain these images - that's why I was looking for someone to help out. I see that someone volunteered above as well. Awadewit (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear whether he "drove" the industrial revolution as a scientist or as a businessman. I would say the latter. Although he was clearly an intellectually sophisicated man and an "innovator", his scientific interests seem to be other than mechanical engineering: "Electricity and astronomy were at one time among his favourite amusements". However, he made excellent business decisions that may have resulted in furthering the industrial revolution. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not include language saying he, or his machines, drove the Industrial Revolution. Certainly there is no problem about finding sources saying that the Boulton & Watt engine set off the Industrial Revolution, but there are others that don't take that view. Such a debate has no place in the article, and I think it is suffient to say, as I do, that it made possible large scale factories. To say that it set off the Industrial Revolution is rather conclusory language, and I think that Mattisse's argument (both here and on her talk page) is strong.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Boulton, using Watt's machine, "set off the Industrial Revolution" alone, or were he and Watt's steam engine part of a complex of many of persons, factors and historical circumstances? And if so, did he do it primarily through his business skills that enabled the innovations of others to be spread more widely, or was he a significant engineering innovator in his own right? —Mattisse (Talk) 12:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the thing, there's historical debate on this point, and I can't include all that in this article. Maybe in the article on the partnership, or on the engine. I put in some language at the end of the partnership with watt section that I think is about as far as I can go.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like something way more toned down, wording to the effect that he was part of the initiation of the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Or even better, just describe what he actually did, without drawing meta conclusions. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with how it is now?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fine now. I think it speaks generally of the influence of the Lunar Society and Boulton's role in it, without specifying Boulton as a "driver" of the Industrial Revolution. Further, I don't see the need for images of his decorated vases, broaches, Wedgewood plates or whatever, as they do not seem significant to his innovativeness or business acumen taken in the context of his work as a whole, being a business venture that fizzled out rather than work that was artistically valued because of Boulton's personal artistic creativity. At least, that is what I glean from the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still nice to have, though. Hopefully Awadewit will revisit the comments soon, I left Awadewit a note and this article will be, I hope, promoted next run through.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:16, 7 July 2009 [3].

Maiden Castle, Dorset

Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think the article accurately respesents current understanding of the largest Iron Age hill fort in Britain and its context. A wide range of sources is used, giving background, and the main authority on Maiden Castle is the article's main reference regarding the actual hill fort. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes time to review the article, Nev1 (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think that this meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Sign_at_Maiden_Castle.jpg appears to be a derived work of a 2D copyrighed artwork, FA criteria 4 Fasach Nua (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was allowed under freedom of panorama? Also, images relate to criterion 3, criterion 4 is about the length of the article and staying on topic; do you object to the amount of detail or did you mean criterion 3? Nev1 (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, UK's FoP on artistic works is restricted to 3D arts. 2D arts are a no-go. Jappalang (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that sucks. I've removed the image no I have to work out how to request a deletion on commons... Nev1 (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jappalang, I'm going to take the unprecedented step of saying that you're wrong about a copyright issue (albeit right in this case). Section 62 of CDPA88 says that it is not an infringement of copyright in the UK to photograph "buildings, sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public" (my emphasis). There's no obligation for said work of artistic craftsmanship to be 3D. I agree that you're right in this particular instance, as there's no indication that the creator of the sign had the conscious purpose of creating a work of art (and hence it's a "graphic work", not a "work of artistic craftsmanship"), but it's absolutely untrue that s62 doesn't apply to any 2D work; murals, mosaics, hand-painted tiles, stained glass etc all fall into "works of artistic craftsmanship" as opposed to "graphic works", and hence are covered by s62 and exempt from copyright. More on this here for anyone trying to understand the very confusing CDPA88. – iride scent 15:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to Commons:Freedom of panorama#United Kingdom, which states "The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to graphic works (which will typically be two-dimensional) such as paintings, murals, advertising hoardings, maps, posters or signs. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder even if they are permanently located in a public place." Jappalang (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I thought you were disclaiming the 2D art portion. You are correct that there is a discernment between just 2D art and "works of artistic craftsmanship". I was overly generalising and apologise if that brought some misunderstanding. (Sidenote: I thought stained glass do not fall under "works of artistic craftsmanship"? I seem to recall a deletion that stated that effect... Going to look it up as it is obstructing a desired image upload of mine... ) Jappalang (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like the panorama, but could it possibly be shopped a little so it's less obviously several photos. The levels of brightness unfortunately make it look rather amateur and it's kind of distracting. Majorly talk 16:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed a request at the graphics lab as the necessary changes are beyond the capability of me and my software. Nev1 (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irunongames (talk · contribs) an Tango22 (talk · contribs) have stepped up and between them improved the image and produced this. Thanks very much to both of them. Nev1 (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a well-written, well-referenced and comprehensive article which I consider fully meets the criteria for a FA. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Support ~~for the moment~~. This is largely because, although comprehensive and well-referenced, ~~there are some significant flaws~~:
- The lead. This is where my most serious concerns lie. Largely it fails to adequately summarise the information buried in the article, and concisely tell the reader what hill forts are. The first paragraph reads;

Maiden Castle is a hill fort in the civil parish of Winterborne Monkton, 2.5 km (1.6 mi) south of Dorchester, in the English county of Dorset (grid reference SY66938848). It occupies the site of a Neolithic causewayed enclosure and bank barrow used for growing crops in about 1800 BC, during the Bronze Age, before being abandoned.

There is nothing here to tell the reader without prior knowledge, what hill forts are and what their purpose was. There is a link to Hill fort, but a good article should be comprehensible on its own. The text at "Hill fort" states "A hill fort is type of fortified refuge or defended settlement, located to exploit a rise in elevation for defensive advantage. They are typically European and of the Bronze and Iron Ages. The fortification usually follows the contours of the hill, consisting of one or more lines of earthworks, with stockades or defensive walls, and external ditches." This article, in the main text describes hill forts as "town-like settlements". readers would not gain this impression from the Lead as currently written. Not all of the quoted information needs to appear, but a cut-down version of some of it does need to appear in the lead of this article.

The first sentence might better start "Maiden Castle is an iron age hill fort..."

Agreed, and added. Nev1 (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the explanation of hill forts, I've made this change. The description from the main hill fort article isn't great, so I've kept mine simple (there's more explanation in the main body of the article). In fact, the main hill fort article is a disgrace, but I'm damned if I'd know where to start. Nev1 (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better. I've made a small clarification to one sentence, adding "hill-top" - on the basis that the article should not assume knowledge. You might think it obvious that a "hill-fort" is built on a hill top, but that is not necessarily the case. Xandar 11:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last part of the second sentence above is poorly constructed. It might read better as "..and bank barrow used during the Bronze Age for growing crops, before being abandoned at some time after 1800 BC."

Fair enough, I've changed the sentence. Nev1 (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Xandar 11:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ostend Manifesto

Nominator(s): Recognizance (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was hesitant to go straight to FAC with this recently passed GAN, but the positive feedback I've gotten from people who specialise in the subject has encouraged me to nominate it. Recognizance (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Support

Recon, this is a splendid article, and one you should be proud of. It is beautifully written and well-documented. VERY good quality work! --Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3 - File:PSoule.jpg - We need a date, source, and author for the image. Note that the license claims it is in the PD because 70 years plus the life of the author has expired, but there is no author. I checked the website for the bioguide from which this particular copy was taken and it states that not everything is in the PD, so we have to do our own research on this one. Hopefully this will be easy to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's old enough to be in the public domain in any case. The man lived long enough ago that it's pretty obvious what the licensing is on the image. If it's an official Senate portrait or something, it's US government ineligible, if not it's just plain old. :) Recognizance (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We must provide the precise information, though. So, for example, if we do not know the name of the photographer, we have to use a different license, such as PD-1923. In that case, we would need to track down just when it was published. Awadewit (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well [WEBsearch_No.HTM a search for Pierre Soule] at the Historic New Orleans Collection gives neither the author nor the image to make sure it's the right one, but there are two possibilities for this image's origin. Assuming this is "Hon. Pierre Soule, U.S. Minister of Spain" the date given is February 18, 1854. Recognizance (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are other images that it could be, though, such as the ones title "Pierre Soule". I think the best thing to do would be to send an email to the Historic New Orleans Collection and ask them for the specific details. They will hopefully have more and know for sure which image it is! Awadewit (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I e-mailed them earlier. Hopefully there's a prompt response, but in the worst case scenario, I guess the image can be replaced. It seems silly since it's obviously pre-1923 and over 70 years, but I understand you don't make the rules.
Since we're on the topic, the article originally had {{Events leading to US Civil War}} in the historical context section. I had considered a map showing geographical proximity of the US and Cuba or something along those lines if you have any thoughts there. Recognizance (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think a map might be a good idea. The other idea I had was a timeline, if you think that would help. Awadewit (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question I just finished reading the article, which was very clear. I did some research on JSTOR and found that there were quite a few articles that mention the Ostend Manifesto. Did you look through any of these? Many of them were published more recently than many of the sources used here. I'm wondering if there are new historical interpretations of these events. Awadewit (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anything new has come to light, although I admittedly only did a cursory glance through there. I did run the article by the author of one of the books used and was going to make a few small changes today (see last section of the talk page). Unfortunately his book was checked out. I'm making a trip tomorrow to another library that has it. Recognizance (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did look through JSTOR when I initially read this article for copy editing purposes, and found little that dealt specifically with the Ostend manifesto, although there were indeed many references to it. It is, after all, an important document that reflects an historical concept, and one that shaped political debate for several decades before the CW. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The accession number has been verified by the Reference Assistant at The Historic New Orleans Collection. The response was prompt - however, an automated response requesting my address and phone number (which obviously weren't needed here) got stuck in my spam folder. I changed the licence tag to pre-1923 as you stated. Recognizance (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a bit more info. Awadewit (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article is organized well and clearly written. Before reading it, I did not know about the Ostend Manifesto, but now I have very clear idea of what it is and its historical context. I'm satisfied with the depth of research. I've suggested a map or a timeline above, which I think would only improve the article still further. Thanks for contributing such a wonderful article! Awadewit (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before I did the GA review, I too had never heard of this document. I was and am completely satisfied with the article, references and prose, so the article has my full support. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:16, 7 July 2009 [5].

Australian Magpie

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets criteria. The images are appropriately licenced, the text comprehensive and I feel it really came together a lot better than some other bird articles I have nominated. The last piece of the jigsaw puzzle was the map which took a bit of time (and many thanks to the v. talented creator User:ChrisDHDR :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the range map in the taxobox should possibly have a caption to the effect of "natural range", as opposed to global range which would include Fiji and New Zealand. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Will do when I get a run of a few minutes to edit uninterrupted :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the organisation is suffering for having two sections, in different parts of the article, with information on distribution. There is the distribution nformation in the taxonomy section which is a great deal more detailed than that in the section on distribution. Its a bit odd. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perennial problem with any bird which has subspecies as to where the information goes. The alternative is listing subspecies' range in distribution, which would be odd as we'd then have two sections itemising the nine subspecies. Although not ideal, the way done so far seemed the simplest way. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment fascinating bird. A couple of comments while giving a first reading. Shyamal (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~"is a medium-sized black and white passerine bird of the family Artamidae native to Australia and southern New Guinea"~~ - can give the impression that the family is native to Australia ... (how 'bout now?) - yes, fine now.
- ~~"Juveniles' plumage contains lighter ..."~~ - can be simpler - have gone ahead and made a change, hope it is ok.
- "Juvenile magpies begin foraging on their own three weeks after leaving the nest, and mostly feeding themselves by six months old." - does this mean that they separate from the family group after six months perhaps ?

not necessarily, they will remain with the group after this point, it just means they can hunt grubs and insects etc. Just made me realise I didn't add anything about dispersal as birds age. Will see what I can find. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it appears a bit contradictory - foraging after 3 weeks and feeding themselves after 6 months.

I take as beginning to learn (3 weeks) but still being fed up to 6 months less and less until mostly feeding themselves (at 6 months). I can try and rephrase if that isn't clear (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~"have become accustomed to coexisting with people" - redundancy ?~~
- ~~"... signal for sunrise, frightening them awake with its call." - frightening sounds a bit odd~~

I know, it is an aboriginal dreamtime legend so 'frightening' is what it means for some reason. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok

- the "carolling" behaviour could do with some explanation. How different from a duet or a chorus ?

The term in the main reference texts is specifically used for the call. I have changed "Pairs of magpies often take up a loud carolling call" to "Pairs of magpies often take up a loud musical calling known as carolling to advertise or defend their territory" - though I am in two minds as to whether "carolling" should be italicized or not. As far as calling it a duet, I will double check to see if more than two birds may do it (which I think they do sometimes) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

addendum - rechecked ref - now "one bird initiates the call with the second (and sometimes more) joining in." (sometimes more than two birds) i.e. not necessarily a duet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is very nicely written—it shows flair in places. However, I've nit-picked through the top:

Is "varied" necessary after "omnivorous"?

I take it you mean the "various" in "eating various items located at or near ground level..." - tricky, I feel it helps emphasise that the bird is a highly opportunistic feeder, eating all sorts of things, but I do concede that "omnivorous" sort of has the same connotation as well. Happy either way really, and I can live with its removal though I do like the flow with it in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It is generally sedentary and territorial throughout its range." I did a double-take, since defending territory and being sedentary seem at odds. Another issue is: Are the last three words necessary?

yes, as many birds in Oz exhibit some migratory or nomadic behaviour in some areas Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Other names ~~used~~ include ...".
"Murray Magpie ~~is a name which~~ refers to the similarly-plumaged Magpie-lark." No hyphen after an "-ly" adverb; but either way, "similarly plumaged" is kind of clunky. You might reverse it; unsure: "One Magpie-lark with a similar plumage is called the Murray Magpie. Oops, but then the very next sentence, across a para boundary, talks of another similarity, does it? Tony (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -
~~Current ref 24 .. the link appears to be to the abstract of a journal article? I'd expect to see the journal article title somewhere...~~

oops, added journal article title to ref 24 (Emu) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current ref 69 (Beruldsen, G..) what makes the author an expert in their field, to satisfy WP:SPS? I note from its World Cat entry that a number of big name libraries have it (UCDavis, Oxford, and the National Agriculture Library..) so it probably just needs a bit more information to make it clearly reliable.

I know what you mean - but I am not sure what I can add to the reference itself to highlight this but the book is widely referenced and seemingly regarded as authoritative - as it is used in this Australian Museum webpage, this Australian Gov't recovery plan and is used in the HANZAB book Higgins et al. which is itself used in this article and is a weighty tome. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean reliable. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Great work; a very useful resource you've produced here. I almost feel knowledgeable on the subject now. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support moral or otherwise Possible COI - I made a few minor copyedits on 22 April, and I'm a member of WP:BIRDS. I couldn't see much wrong in April and it's better now. Two unactionable comments
- is there anything in Oz which isn't dangerous?
  - Some of the sheep are alright. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know, they were whippersnippering the nearby railway tracks the other day and I saw one of these in my garden, which is to Sydney CBD like, say, Shepherd's Bush is to London CBD - I did a fair double take and rubbed my eyes....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I love the psychedelic map - takes me back to the sixties....

jimfbleak (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tidied up (capitalised) the image captions, surprised it hadn't been done before. Otherwise great article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image concern as follows:

File:MagpieWarningSign2008.jpg: Australia's copyrights are automatically granted (no need for registration) on creation of works. While the text here is certainly instructive (matter of fact) and unlikely copyrightable, the little caricature on the right might be of concern.

~~Other~~ Images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what can we d about it? A short 'fair use' explanation on the image page? Not sure here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the article suffers with its removal. I thought perhaps Australia's freedom of panorama might help, but it does not apply for drawings. I am not certain we can "mosaic" or erase the caricature, and delete the original version... As it is, I tagged it for copyvio. Jappalang (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have removed the pic from the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A great article on a fascinating bird. One point, however; the categorisation seems strange. The map shows a range covering every state and territory of Australia but the categories listed show only the states of South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia. Further, the bird is fairly ubiquitous in NZ. While it was introduced and not native, should it be included in Category:Birds of New Zealand? It is included in List of birds of New Zealand (as Gymnorhina tibicen). For comparison's sake, the Polynesian Rat is a non-native mammal included in Mammals of New Zealand. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. good idea. and now done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick scan, I saw citation cleanup needs, missing publisher:

^ "www.legislation.sa.gov.au" (PDF). Retrieved on 2009-04-14. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

addressed Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning towards~~ support

Images have adequate descriptions and verifiable licenses.
Sources (except for concern listed below) satisfy RS policy

~~Sources~~

Current ref 69 (Beruldsen, G..): The nest is a bowl-shaped structure made of sticks and lined with softer material such as grass and bark. Near human habitation, synthetic material may be incorporated. - This is the information sourced to Beruldsen, a self-published book. Is there really no other source that states these facts? This makes me nervous. These are fundamental facts about the building of the bird's nest. Surely they must be referenced elsewhere?

(As I pointed out above, this book is referenced all over the place - by goverment papers on bird species, and by the huge HANZAB series on all Australian and NZ birds. It is an anomaly with the self-published bit but not much I can do about it. I really need to hit the sack now and get some sleep but will see what I can dig up tomorrow) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on with this? It could be this is the best source on the bird's nest - I just want to be sure. Awadewit (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered the book was published by Rigby at one stage, but have no idea why he subsequently self-published it. I still feel it is the best way to reference this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will trust your judgment on this. Awadewit (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I would suggest a copyedit of the first half of the article by an uninvolved editor. I kept getting tripped up by awkward sentences. Here are some examples:~~

although some authorities place it in its own genus Gymnorhina based on its adaptation to ground-dwelling - "based on its adaptation to ground-dwelling" is awkward and wordy - would "based on its habit of living on the ground" be acceptable?

ground-dwelling --> living on the ground. 'adaptation' necessary as it has anatomically changed, with longer legs and walking gait. agree it is tricky, especially in the lead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its robust wedge-shaped bill bears a hook at the end, and is a bluish-white colour bordered with black. - slightly awkward
Much blame on the Magpie as a predator in the past has been anecdotal only - awkward
The first paragraph of "Vocalisations" is particularly awkward and the entire section overuses the word "complex" - try to be use more specific diction.
I found the many one-sentence paragraphs to be inelegant. (agreed. combined and played with)

Has the first half of the article been copyedited? Awadewit (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Circeus did some copyediting and posted some questions and clarifications on the talk page here. I have also done some Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Clarifications and organization:~~

At one stage, the Australian Magpie was considered to be three separate species - When?

Sometimes cases like these aren't as exact as we'd like - eg. bird guidebooks would list as 3 species until the mid 1970s, although some key peer-reviewed publications more and more treated them as one species. I will see if I can fine-tune it a bit. The issue is there is no source saying guidebooks did this as such, just those for the literature. There is a date 2 sentences further on.Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~There is a tendency for birds to become larger with increasing latitude~~ - Could a short explanation be added? Well here's the thing. This is clearly Bergmann's rule and insular dwarfism, yet the source (frustratingly) does not use either of those terms or align observations with either of those phenomena, even though it is pretty obvious - I was wonating to avoid any semblance of OR. I have searched for somewhere linking the terms with the magpie but with no success to date. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Channel-billed Cuckoo (Scythrops novaehollandiae) is a notable brood parasite in eastern Australia; magpies will raise cuckoo young, which eventually outcompete the magpie nestlings - This seemed kind of tacked on at the end of the "Breeding" section. I tried this Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The call has been portrayed in Denis Glover's poem The Magpies, with the refrain Quardle oodle ardle wardle doodle—one of the most famous lines in New Zealand poetry—and in the children's book Waddle Giggle Gargle by Pamela Allen. - Is it necessary to repeat this bit about the poem? If so, can we find a way to repeat it more elegantly and less obviously? (yes, done)

Could we get a recording of the singing? I see that there are some in the external links. Those don't seem to have compatible licenses with Wikipedia, though. Any chance of obtaining a recording that does?

Love to. I have absolutely no experience in the area of chasing and adding sounds. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried a university in Australia or bird-watching societies? Awadewit (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked around for recordings, but no luck as yet - did' get a Pied Currawong call though... Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A 13-year-old boy died from tetanus, apparently from a magpie injury, in northern New South Wales in 1946. - Might this be WP:UNDUE?

I mused on this, but magpie attacks are a serious problem in springtime Australia, and the event was mentioned in a couple of places as an answer to how dangerous they could be, so I veered on leaving it in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to give the article my full support. Awadewit (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I rue not having any recording equipment as the dumb birds are everywhere around my house...(well, they're not dumb really actually quite smart)..but hopefully I will get some help at some stage as there are a few Australian songbirds to work up yet..Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This needs rewording- based on its adaptation to living on the ground. What adaptation? There needs to be a mention in the intro that the bird is well adapted to living on the ground. It doesn't actually state that.

Semi-colons. I hate them. They are nearly always used inappropriately. I'm going to be sexist and say it's a bloke thing. Men use them to join sentences together like nuts and bolt, Selleys adhesive and "she'll be right, Mate!" Sentences that actually do relate to each other are better connected if part is turned into a phrase or a clause. If they don't relate to each other in a very direct way (I don't mean simply "follow on") then they need full stops and capital letters. I'm having a blitz. You have one short paragraph there where six sentences have been turned into three by semi colons. Amandajm (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(shuffles feet and looks at floor)...but I like them...oh well, I tried the lead like this per above, but then the genus is mentioned at the end and not with other classification notes. Still, it flows I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:16, 7 July 2009 [6].

Halo Wars

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets all criteria. Some introductory explanations:

Regarding Lady Ealdgyth's source comments at Talk:Halo Wars#Sources_pre_FAC:
WorthPlaying.com: besides being an interview; the author is Rainier Van Autrijve, the content manager/editor of the site. Autrijve has also written extensively for GameSpy (e.g., [7]). For the site itself, it is listed as a good source by Cool Careers Without College for People Who Love Video Games (Rosen Publishing: 2007), not sure how much that counts for. They are also referenced by other sites, I could find [8] for example.
Kotaku: I figured why defend the authors, and so replaced them with references from TeamXbox.

Cheers, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments-
I'm on the fence about the worth playing. I'd like to see more from mainstream press (not gaming press) about them (The cool careers thing isn't worth much). It's borderline enough with the author/interviewer that I can say "leave it out for other reviewers to decide" if nothing else comes up.
~~You've got a deadlink (the timesonline one isn't dead, but an IGN one's gone dead).~~

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the IGN deadlink (just a bad cut and paste, was missing the "l" in html. I have not been able to dig up anything else on Worthplaying, I will try but I find it unlikely that MSM will have much on them. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave that out for other reviewers to decide for themselves then. Ping me if anything new pops up. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is there any need to give IGN three times the exposure on the reviews table? - hahnch e n 11:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are three different reviews from three different IGN sites. Considering the wide range of opinions found in all three, I considered it important to list them all. It's hardly undue weight. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's just that IGN AU is not used at all but noted in the table, yet OXM US or Eurogamer Portugal (also not used) isn't there. The Total Video Games review is cited 5 times in total, yet does not appear in the table. This is a minor point, I'm not opposing, but it just looks like you shoved the IGN reviews in there just because they were on IGN; and had they written 4 reviews, that would have been in there too. - hahnch e n 20:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose: From a content perspective, it looks fairly complete. However, the prose needs work before it can be called "FA quality". Here are a few examples:

"In 2009, Halo Wars was released in Japan and Australia on February 26, in PAL territories on February 27, and in North America on March 3." Disjointed; crams too much information into a single sentence.

"The game features a story-based campaign that can be played alone or cooperatively and a multiplayer option, called "skirmish mode". In skirmish mode, players may ally with humans to defeat computer-controlled units or battle each other." Try, "The game features a story-based campaign that can be played alone or cooperatively. A multiplayer option, called "skirmish mode", allows players to compete against human or computer-controlled opponents." Still not perfect, but probably an improvement.

"Players can find and claim some supplies on the battlefield, but generate more by building special structures at bases. Income increases with the number of UNSC supply pads or Covenant warehouses." "Some" is needlessly vague. Also, referring to "UNSC supply pads or Covenant warehouses" is confusing to someone who hasn't played the game before, since you don't introduce them as supply buildings. Why not just cut it down to "... but generate more by building supply structures at bases. Income increases with the number of these structures." Something like that, although you'll have to find a word besides "structures".

"Broadly speaking, ground vehicles are powerful against infantry, infantry do well against aircraft, and aircraft are the counter to vehicles." Not sure what could be done to this sentence, but repetition would probably be preferable to the constant change of terms.

"The Spirit of Fire is run with help from Serina, a super-intelligent and highly sarcastic artificial intelligence (AI) with a dry and sardonic sense of humor;[14] she demonstrates a level of contempt for the humans she assists.[15]" This sentence contains redundancies. Try, "The Spirit of Fire is overseen by Serina, an artificial intelligence (AI) with a dry and sardonic sense of humor; she demonstrates contempt for the humans on board." Not having played the game, I don't know if this edit is factual. It's just an idea of how it could be improved.

"The character design of the Spartans was meant to emphasize their relative inexperience and the setting of the game decades before the events of the main trilogy." This sentence is extremely disjointed, but I couldn't say how it could be improved.

"Hoping players would become attached to individual Spartans in the campaign, the designers left the skirmish units nameless." The second part is seemingly unconnected to the first. If there is a connection, it needs to be made clearer. If not, split the sentence in two.

~~These are just a few examples. I recommend finding a copyeditor to go over the entire article.~~ JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've modified all the above, save the ground v infantry v aircraft bit. I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was referring to the way the wording changes each time; repetitive wording would probably improve the sentence. For example, "infantry counter aircraft, vehicles counter infantry, and aircraft counter vehicles". Not in those exact words, but something like that. Changing the wording each time is unnecessarily jarring. Anyway, as I said, those were a few random examples I picked out of the article. There are plenty of others, which is why I recommended a copyeditor. Until the prose receives polish, I can't support. I'd work on it myself, but I don't have enough free time; sorry. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I fixed the above example. I asked TKD to run through it, and I've done another pass. I've asked the esteemed Laser if he might be able to help out, but I know he's often swamped. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I just went through part of the article to fix redundancies and flow errors. As a result of the work Laserbrain and I have done, the prose has drastically improved. Unfortunately, it still isn't FA quality. You'll have to find another copyeditor, though, because I don't have any more free time to use on this article. The sections of the article beyond where I worked will need more attention; it also wouldn't hurt for another copyeditor to look over the sections that have already been worked on. On another note, I'd missed the lack of plot citations until bridies brought it up, but I have to agree with him on that. While you've added a few, there need to be more. In closing, I don't mean to be a pain, but I can't support it until further improvements are made.JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ the prose, in too many parts, is opaque to readers like me, who do not play these games. OK, you might ask, why am I reading the article? My answer is that FAs should represent our best work; this does not. What are "two playable sides"? How many non-playable sides are there? What on earth does "allocate to upgrades" mean? Oh my, there are so many more. I too suggest you ask Laser if he will help with this. Having said that, FAC is not WP:Peer review Graham Colm ^Talk 23:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a peer review didn't garner any substantial comments, so hey, I blame the system. I have adjusted the two examples above. Could you care to list others that are opaque for a non-gamer? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my problems are mainly in the Gameplay section and I think it would help a great deal if the Synopsis section came first. This at least would give a basic idea of what is going-on as the game is played. In Gameplay familiar words seem to have esoteric meanings in this context: "upgrading technologies", "campaign mode", "base", "tech", "tech upgrading", "tech level", "hero unit", "radial menu", "console" as an adjective, "income increases" are some examples of where I get stuck. Some of the linked words do not help much either; clicking on technology tree leads me to a definition that has its own links, only when I click on these secondary links do I eventually begin to understand the parent sentence in this article. If we could make Gameplay more non-gamer friendly, I would consider withdrawing my opposition. To be frank, and I am sure this is not true, when reading the section I feel that the contributors have been lazy. Graham Colm ^Talk 15:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started working on the examples above; take a look and see if I'm heading in the right direction. As to the arrangement, why in particular would moving the Synopsis section aid in comprehension? The only elements carried over from one to another are the UNSC/Covenant dynamic. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and that helps. To be honest, doing so would make me, and perhaps others, more inclined to read the rest of the article—it's a more engaging read. No big deal though.Graham Colm ^Talk 16:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ambivalent about it. Video games articles generally have gameplay first, and I valid arguments for putting either first. I guess if others chime in that it would help I'd be glad to change it, right now that would be a change from all the other Halo games. The only term I'm having big issues with are "bases" and "campaign". What part of the bases explanation do you find lacking? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If "base" and "campaign" are being used in the military sense and do not have an esoteric meaning in this context, they are fine. Although I understand now, I still don't like "story-based campaign mode" and "skirmish mode". Aren't these modes just versions of the same game? Graham Colm ^Talk 16:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's what the modes are called and while I suppose you could consider them "versions" of the same game there are significant differences. In the "old days", as it were it would be easier to draw the distinction because campaigns were essentially the single-player mode, and then multiplayer was also offered, but no most games allow for cooperative play in the campaigns as well so they are more social. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have withdrawn my oppose. I would like see further reviews from readers who know what they are talking about, (unlike me), before adding my support. Thanks for being so patient. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent) It has been standard practice for quite awhile to place the gameplay section before plot details. I think it should stay that way, in this case. However, you do bring up a valid point about non-gamers trying to read the article. As it is now, I doubt you'll be the only person who has trouble understanding it. I should have some free time later, so I'll go over the gameplay section and see what still needs clarification. I'll also see if the prose needs any more work; Laserbrain already went through it, but the more eyes, the better. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed some things around. I think it's an improvement, but it might still need work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm embarking on a copyedit of this article today. --Laser brain (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments. I've concluded a general copyedit that hopefully has cleared up some issues people are seeing. Some additional concerns:
- I feel there is a general overuse of quotations in the article. We seem to rely on them, especially in the Reception section, to convey the thoughts of critics and involved personnel. However, I think that unless they've said something profound, we should be paraphrasing. A few quotations are great, but we should remove and paraphrase at least 1/3 of what's there.
- "According to Microsoft, the game set a one-day record for most downloads" This is far too nebulous and requires qualification. One-day record for what? For all games ever? For all downloadable content ever? For just Xbox games?
- "two thousand GameStop stores held midnight releases for the game" Not confident that many readers are going to be familiar with the "midnight release" phenomenon prevalent in the US. Does any retailer do this in the UK or other places? Can we reword to somewhat explain what and why?

--Laser brain (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - I've tried to eliminate or shorten a batch of quotes in the reception section. I've also reworded the downloads mention, is it clearer now? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I think everything has been addressed now. --Laser brain (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I had a list of things to complain about in the gameplay section, but they have been cleared up. That section is looking much better now, IMO.
I'm not keen on the lack of citations in the plot section. I would like to see some more of this sourced to secondary articles and/or dialogue from the game, if at all possible.
RE: Laser Brain's comment about midnight releases, UK retailers do them on occasion; as a British reader I'm familiar with the term, at least. bridies (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding citations now. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...and citations added. --16:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Another issue I have with the plot section is it seems to be almost all in-universe. It could really use some more "signposting" to give an indication that this is a fictional narrative, such as is seen in the setting paragraph (i.e. "Halo Wars takes place in the science fictional universe..." and "The game takes place...") and again in the last paragraph (i.e. "If the game is completed..."). bridies (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the parts that have to be noted from out-of-universe perspective are already marked as such. (It is also from a continuing present tense.) Aside from maybe adding "the story begins" to plot, I'm not seeing any areas that would benefit from extra words. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I note there have been two calls for citations in the Plot section, which I think to be wholly unnecessary. The Plot section is not interpretive—it is merely an synopsis. Therefore, it should be assumed the primary source is used (the game) and citations should not be needed. I would ask Bridies and JimmyBlackwing to reconsider their position on this issue. --Laser brain (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should this article be exempt from standard procedure? I can't remember the last time I saw a plot section without citations in a VG FA. Consider that, if there are no citations, there is no way for the average reader to verify the statements made without playing the game. Also, why should we assume that the plot details are correct? Without citations, it's perfectly possible that the writer made a mistake, or that a misinformed editor inserted incorrect details. There's no reason not to have citations, and plenty of reasons why not having them would be a bad idea. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's more the standard procedure that Plot sections do not require citations. However, I was looking more at novels and films. Looking at some video game FAs, I can see that quotes and such are cited, and I can see the value in that. I don't think we should require secondary sources though. --Laser brain (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am fairly unfamiliar with the FA standards of novels and films, as I've mostly stuck with editing video game articles. But for video game FA plot sections, primary citations are basically the accepted procedure. I don't know about bridies, but I wasn't asking for secondary sources. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Video Game Project's sources page recommends using secondary sources where possible, and this should be possible to some extent because reviews will provide a small amount of plot information. Citing the primary source is usually necessary as well (as reviewers won't give away the ending, for example), but as the sources page notes transcripts should be provided where possible. Citations are necessary IMO because inaccurate details do get added in sometimes. The section looks mostly fine now, but there is still a fact tag that needs addressing one way or another. bridies (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Revisted - The article is much improved since my earlier comments, but I am still not convinced that some parts of the writing are of FA standard. It might be just my tastes, and although I do not like redundancy, I think some sentences such as "Multiplayer was generally judged well" are just a little too skinny, and, a few remain cumbersome, e.g "In January 2009, the soundtrack was announced to be released on February 17". There were boring repetitions of critics who constantly "felt that", which I WP:Bold changed to "said". I still think the article would benefit from a final polish before being promoted. I don't think definite articles are considered redundant—yet. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. What are "first-person shooters"? Graham Colm ^Talk 21:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

linky. Any issue in the article? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

linky is good, thanks. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, clearly I know bugger-all about video games. But I have done some homework; I have shown this article to the younger members of my laboratory who were impressed by it. I prefer a more traditional prose style and am still finding perceived "faults" with the prose. But I am happy to add my support now, but reserve the right, which we all enjoy, to tweak the prose later. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Por supuesto. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Graham Colm ^Talk 21:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is there any need to have both GameRankings and Metacritic scores? - hahnchen 12:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't take your crusade against non-MC aggregate scores here, please. It's being hashed out on WT:VG. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a FAC, you should be justifying your editorial decisions. Same for your inclusion of every IGN score as mentioned above. - hahnchen 21:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Aggregate scores are useful as an overall metric and snapshot for critical consensus. Contrasting two different metrics is useful, akin to using Metacritic and Rottentomatoes together in a film article. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - To chime in her as someone passing by, over half the reviews contributing to GR's aggregate score are not shared with Metacritic, and David's point on contrasting the two scores is a valid point when both use an extensive amount of reviews.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGF Support - AGF because I assume you will fix this: In "Design", the paragraph beginning with "Because of the Master Chief's large role" has a quote that does not have a citation directly following it. If it is the same citation later in the paragraph, use the ref name and duplicate the citation immediately after the quote so it does not go without a direct citation following it. The same thing happens with the partial quote in the paragraph beginning "Ensemble expanded the". This occurs again in Audio with the sentence "Rippy started work on Halo Wars by listening to previous". As a side note, the quotes from the game (I assume they are from the game) don't really help in the reference section. I believe you could put them in a separate section but I have never done it myself so someone else would have to help you with it. The AGF is simply about the citations following the quotes above. You can ignore the video game quote comment as being a personal response and not part of this FAC comment. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quotes have been sourced immediately afterward. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The prose is more-or-less fine until Audio. That section and those below it clearly do not display "compelling, even brilliant" prose. The writing isn't horrible, but it is rough. But aside from the handful of corrections I made, I don't have time to copyedit it. Despite your comment on my talk page, I notice that TKD hasn't actually gone through the article. If he does, I suspect that any issues I have with the prose will be ironed out. Until he or another similarly skilled copyeditor polishes the article, though, I'm afraid I can't support. I think the fact that I've found something to fix every time I've looked through the article is proof enough that it needs work. If it sounds like I'm being unreasonable, I apologize. However, I believe that "Wikipedia's best work" should display professional-level prose, which this article currently does not. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TKD has gone through the article; he was the first to do so. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 11:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support: Oh, I see. I looked at the edit history and didn't see any recent edits by him. I guess I just didn't go back far enough. My mistake. Anyway, I found time to do a light follow-up copyedit for Laserbrain; it looks a lot better than it did yesterday. I'm not Tony1, but as far as I can see, the prose is hitch-free enough to be called FA quality. Sorry it took so long for me to support, but I think I can now do so in good conscience. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've gone through it again from Audio down. I did find some problems, and a few artifacts that may have been introduced in the recent flurry of editing. I'm not seeing anything else, but I may be too close to the text to find additional problems. --Laser brain (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In the Gameplay section, the part about "tech" is very confusing and vague. I'm a quite experienced gamer, and even I cannot figure out what this mysterious "tech" is (is it something like "supplies" that has to be collected? What are "tech levels" or "tech upgrades" - are they the same thing?), let alone would a non-gamer. Korodzik (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tech is tech, not really any good way to describe it. It's not a resource, and it's not collected, rather its more an inhibiting factor to gameplay (can't build X until you have Y tech.) Is there some signal phrases, et al. that might make this clearer to you? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I understand correctly: to build some structures, you have to achieve a certain "tech level", which can be done by building reactors, each of which provides a tech level upgrade (UNSC) or by building a temple, with which you can increase the tech level (Covenant). Is it like this? Korodzik (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes indeed. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:16, 7 July 2009 [9].

Luton Town F.C.

Nominator(s): Cliftonian • talk 08:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has had a successful peer review, and a lot of work has gone into it, both by me and by others. I believe it is now on a par with other featured articles on football clubs, and am therefore nominating it. Cliftonian • talk 08:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random comment: "The club have been looking for a new site since 1955." Should "have" be "has"? Mm40 (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. In English English the common usage on sports teams is that even in the singular they are referred to in the plural. Look at this article from the BBC for an example. Cliftonian • talk 12:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was only for proper nouns; i.e., "Luton Town F.C. are" but "the club is". Dabomb87 (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the BBC, evidently… ("The club are serious") Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I much prefer the Americans' use of the formal agreement in cases like this; I'm British, and even I hate "Luton F.C. are". Unfortunately, I don't make the rules, so we're stuck with it. But for "club", it depends on whether the emphasis is on the club itself, or its members; with this example it can go either way. I'd go for the singular. :) Steve ^{T • C} 14:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, prefer the American practice. I've even heard British and Australian speakers refer to corporations with this dissonant plural verb; that is going too far, I think, and "the club are" is, too—why not "the members are", if you want to stress the plurality of the subject? It's hard to take a strict line on it, though, and my opinion here is only a personal one. Tony (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it just comes down to what you're used to — having grown up with the usage, hearing anything other than it is very jarring to me. The BBC and other British media use it — for example The Times (an example from them here), The Independent (example here) and The Guardian (example here). Surely an English football article should use native grammar? Cliftonian • talk 17:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so, but it pains me every time I see it. Maybe it's tolerable for proper nouns that can't be plurals, but I find it rediculous for common nouns. "The club is", "the clubs are". Upon a quick run-through, my only concern is that the managers section is somewhat redundant to List of Luton Town F.C. managers. I would cut some of that section. Reywas92 ^Talk 18:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of the managers section, it is already cut down to only include managers in charge for 50 games. The reason for this is the precedent set by other FA football club articles such as York City F.C.. I personally think that the best solution is to keep it as it is, but I'm open to debate about it. The feelings you have about the "club are" usage are replicated on my part whenever I see "club is" — as I said above, I find it very jarring indeed. I appreciate that it's the correct American English usage, and I can put up with it — I just don't see why any article should use anything other than the native dialect. Cliftonian • talk 10:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about it; I'd be very surprised if anyone even considered opposing based on regional inconsistencies in collective noun use. (Aside: you might find this discussion useful). Steve ^{T • C} 22:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers fella. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I have been mulling over this, I must say, saying it in singular sounds nicer, anyway, now to do a bit of prose massage...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -
What makes the following reliable sources?
- ~~http://www.englandstats.com~~

The same site is cited by List of Sunderland A.F.C. players, a featured article. Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/Luton_Town/Luton_Town.htm

The same site is cited by York City F.C., a featured article. Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~http://bygonederbyshire.co.uk/articles/Payne,_Joe_-_Brimington_Footballer_Played_For_England (see http://bygonederbyshire.co.uk/articles/Bygone_Derbyshire:About)~~

Point taken, I've removed it. Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- http://www.englandfootballonline.com/index.html

The same site is cited by Bobby Robson, a featured article. Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub/lutt.htm (also has a bare url in the ref)~~

Agreed. Replaced with reference to Bailey. Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~http://www.thefootballnetwork.net/main/s120/st44186.htm~~

Removed. Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- http://www.footballfanscensus.com/issueresults/Club_Rivalries_Uncovered_Results.pdf

The same site is cited by York City F.C., a featured article. Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - link checker tool shows one dead link but it works when you click through.

I had noticed, thanks anyway. Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. (I noticed Herald & Post, WHen Saturday Comes, and Luton Times)

Ok, sorted. I believe that When Saturday Comes is self-published — do you think it's necessary to mention them twice in each reference? Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's not. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 15:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources are cited by other featured articles, then surely their reliability has already been established? Cliftonian • talk 15:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. Prior to the middle of 2008, source checking at FAC was more haphazard, so it's not a given that the source was checked. And one above is a featured list, not a featured article. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok… Historical Kits is maintained by Dave and Matt Moor, who cite their sources as can be seen for example on their Luton Town page (the little letters by the kits, and the sources at the bottom). England Stats is confirmed as reliable by The Guardian here, and England Football Online is cited by The Independent here. The Football Fans Census reliability I think can be confirmed here. Cliftonian • talk 16:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The football fans census bit only shows that they provide a grant for studies, not that they are considered reliable by other sources (like the englandstats site being used in the Guardian). The England Football Online is borderline with what you're using, the Independent isn't actually citing them, they are referring readers to them, I'll leave that out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Likewise, I'll leave the kit site out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, it's not exactly contentious information after all. With that, the three sites are up to other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

England Football Online is generally solid, but if the ref to it is an issue, RSSSF provides an alternative [10]. Football Fans Census reports usually make it into the media (e.g. [11], [12], and as one of three cites for a single sentence I see no problem. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ – Early into the article, I'm finding a lot of problems with the prose. These are just examples of problems; I don't claim to have caught everything. Please consider finding someone to copy-edit the article, because it needs some attention.

"with financial difficulties causing the club..." is one of these awkward sentences that uses "with" as a connector. To fix this, use "as financial difficulties caused" or "; financial difficulties caused". It's worth checking for sentences with this structure throughout, as taking care of them will make a big difference in the writing.

OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History: Watch for redundant wording, such as this: "brought on by the club's isolated location crippled the club financially. The club were far from the northern heartlands of the Football League, and so it was too expensive for the club to even compete." See how many clubs there are? Change a couple of them and this part will be much better.

OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~"and were founder members of the Southern Football League in 1894." Is "founder member" used commonly in Britain? I'd have thought "founding member" was more typical.~~

Please see above. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why is Italy linked? Who doesn't know what that is?~~

OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~In this section, I sense an overuse of "only"; for example, it isn't necessary in "but the club managed to win back promotion after only two years".~~

OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I see a couple of spaced em dashes, which go against the Manual of Style. Either make them unspaced or change them to smaller en dashes.~~

OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~"and the spine of the team was sold on." What does this mean? Sounds quite informal, to be honest.~~

OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~"This team finally reached the top flight in 1955–56". Some here would consider "finally" to be slightly POV.~~

OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~"However, they were relegated the following season, and had fallen to the Fourth Division by 1965." The "had fallen" part does not work at all with the rest of the sentence.~~

OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~More informal language: "Two years later Malcolm Macdonald fired them to another promotion".~~

OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Club Identity: Second word should be decapitalized per MoS, because it is not a proper noun.~~

OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~In the references, all of the page ranges should have en dashes, not hyphens.~~

OK, sorted. Cheers for all your comments. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 (17-14) 15:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator told me on my talk page that he asked for a copy-edit from Casliber. I'm waiting on that before re-reviewing. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Dweller has been copy-editing here recently. Please post here when he's done so I can offer a re-review. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edit is finished, you want to have a read through now? – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 12:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Much, much happier with the prose now. Before coming here, I fixed a few minor things, which weren't worth posting here. Good work all around in polishing the article. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, pending the promised copyedit, which is sorely needed IMO. Just a couple of additional points:
- The discussion above does not get directly to the heart of the sloppiness in this and far too many other sports articles. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that "club" is singular. Period. No if, no buts. The only possible exception would be if the subject were the members of the club, rather than the club itself, which is not the case in this article. "Luton Town", on the other hand is often conventionally consider plural, as in "Luton Town play their games at ...". But this article is not even consistent in its mistaken belief that "club" is plural, as in "The club produces an official match programme ..."

OK. That's what we'll use for it. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 13:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- There are other signs of sloppy prose as well, such as "Luton first adopted their white and black colours for the 1920–21 season, the same year they rejoined the Football League." The "1920–21 season" is of course not a year.

--Malleus Fatuorum 14:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit: I'll give it a whizz. Not sure how quickly I'll be able to turn it around. I'll go with the nominator's (NB not my) preference and try to make consistent all references to the team and the club as plural. --Dweller (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I misunderstood; the club is singular, but the team, i.e., Luton Town, is plural. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How we're doing it is that the CLUB (i.e. Luton Town Football Club; for example "Luton Town Football Club was founded in 1885") is singular and the TEAM (i.e. the players; "Luton Town play in white, orange and blue") is plural. That's my perception of it in any case. As I said before, I don't really mind that much, although I find the singular usage quite strange.

Comments From a football point of view (i.e. 1b and 1c), following changes made after peer review I have no major concerns.
- On my monitor the image of Harford causes a large gap between header and table. Is there another place the image could go?

I've made it a bit smaller, and moved it right to the top of the section – does this solve the problem? Cliftonian (Talk •Contibs) 19:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, at 1024x768, the list takes up about 90% of the screen width, so there isn't really room for it to go inline. Oldelpaso

(talk) 14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I think Micky's going to have to go. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 14:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~"The club has been looking for a new site since 1955" is a bit jarring, and implies a constant search rather than several different initiatives.~~

OK, I've re-written it as "The club has made several attempts to relocate, and first stated their intent to do so in 1955." Better? Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 19:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Why was the 1921 fire mysterious~~?

Because nobody knows what caused it. Still, I agree that it doesn't really sound very encyclopaedic so I've removed it. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 19:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oldelpaso (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to support if the prose opposers are satisfied. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have the opposers been asked to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~No. I'll wait until the copy-edit's done and then I'll get them to come back.~~ Yes. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Provisional~~ support okay, I have chipped in here and there to buff this up, and I think it is over the line prose-wise at the moment, nd nothing jumps out at me to fix. Consider this provisional until the opposers speak up. If they still note material needing fixing I will try to address. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think this now well on the way to FA after all the copyediting that's been done, but I do still have a concern about the flag icons used in the Current squad and Managers sections. Another current FAC candidate has been criticised because of its failure to conform to the MoS guidelines on flags, and this article seems to have the same problem. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. With all the work that's been done I think this article now meets the FA criteria. I do though still have one small issue that I'd like to see resolved. The flag key for Current squad list nationalities as "English", "Irish", and so on, but the key for Managers gives "England", "Ireland", etc. I think it would be preferable for them to be consistent. That's obviously just a minor point though. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made them consistent now, as "English", "Irish", "Scottish", etc. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 17:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose

- "Division Four" - odd, I don't think I've ever heard an Englishman use this terminology for the Fourth Division...
- "... the club to fall in just three years from..." could use some commas here I reckon, like "... the club to fall, in just three years, from..."
- spell is used twice in the last para of the lead, a touch repetitive.
- "formed on Sunday, 11 April 1885" is Sunday really necessary here?
- "and won its championship" - odd phrasing. Perhaps - "won the title" or something?
- "... when war broke ..." that war is linked to WWI, as is World War One a sentence or so later. Overlinking.
- Is there a good reason we're linking sock in this article?
- "fourth in their division" just "the division" would suffice I think.
- "were sold on" - "on" is a little redundant - also, do you have details of to whom these players were sold?
- "to the Second Division, then the second tier of English football" could be misconstrued as two consecutive promotions. Perhaps remove "then".
- "had scored 10 in one match" against whom?
- "as well as Irish internationals" at this point you could link to the 1950+ Ireland national football team.
- "Luton bounced back" a touch journalistic for my taste.
- "Division Four championship" again, I could be wrong but most of us would say "Fourth Division championship"
- " .... two years later Malcolm Macdonald's goals helped them to another promotion,[34] and comedian Eric Morecambe became a director of the club" - did Morecambe become director because of the promotion? The sentence could read that way.
- "Luton Town staff" - I think it's players and technical staff actually.
- "A respite was found in the" -> "A respite came in the"
- I'm confused how you contract "Straw-plaiters" to Hatter. Sounds more like rhyming slang...
- "Luton suddenly changed" - suddenly? They just changed. I suppose you mean the change was a big one. I think it should be rephrased.
- Avoid squashing text between images per WP:MOS#Images
- "season.[60]." spare full stop.
- "10,226[1][2]" - I know it's a good idea to cite things as close as possible but (1) why two cites for one fact and (2) you could move this a couple of words to the right, after the comma.
- "World War II " previous war you referred to as "World War One" - be consistent. And if I had a preference for articles on English subjects, I'd use "First World War" and "Second World War", but I may be in the minority.
- "it quickly became unpopular" I seem to recall it also became considered an unfair advantage for Luton playing at home, controversial in fact. Anything available on that?
- I know it's chronologically correct but "Work began a year later on converting the ground to an all-seater." seems squeezed in between the sentences about away fans. Can we reorganise this?
- "to an all-seater was " - "to an all-seater ground was..." perhaps.
- Graph - worth explaining the huge dip (early 60s) then the huge rise (late 60s) in the caption if you can do it succinctly?
- "Even then the ground was ..." reinforce where we are - "Even then Kenilworth Road was...".. then "... and its location..."
- "following the club's takeover in 2008" I didn't see this explicitly mentioned in the history section.
- "its current peers" - are these clubs that are local or clubs in the same league?
- 138443 needs a comma, as does any other value over 999.
- "have dwindled since the installation of seats and the club's fall from grace" - the capacity didn't dwindle from all-seater introduction, it was step-change reduced. As for "fall from grace", another journalistic phrase.
- "Industrial and provident Society" our own article capitalises Provident - Industrial and Provident Society.
- "as either Happy Harry or Harry the Hatter" well I guess he's known as both then or is it pre-determined which one he's called on a given occasion?
- "Luton holds the superior record in the fixture" - you haven't mentioned a fixture yet. Perhaps "in the fixture between the clubs"
- "There is also animosity between Luton Town fans and those of west London club Queens Park Rangers" why? It may seem an impertinent question but there is animosity between supporters of most clubs to one degree or other - what makes this QPR-hatred significant and why does it exist?
- "the most Football League appearances," - ensure you state this is "for the club" unless he made more Football League appearances than anyone else in history?
- "with 276, 162, 154, 122 and 103 respectively" not sure this is required, it's certainly inelegant for the prose.
- Link cap appropriately.
- Bailey, Collings and Hayes books - I don't think you need to continually repeat the title in the specific references.
- Sport in Luton is a supercat and can be removed.
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All sorted. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 18:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Club identity section is still squashing text between images, against WP:MOS recommendations. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better? – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 18:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on my display (1280 pixels wide) it's still squashed, and we need to deal with people who have 800 pixels-wide screens. Also, no mention of the QPR thing either. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it a bit further down. On QPR, I can't find anything on the reasons behind it. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 18:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay for that section but now (on my display) the crests flood into the following section, push the stadium image down and then squash text between that image and the graph... As for QPR, you have a source to back you up, perhaps you should state that a "recent survey" or something similar has shown this rivalry to be significant. After all, that's what's important, verifiable notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted the pictures and the QPR thing. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 18:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All that's left is references I think - 17 should be p not pp, 29 has a hyphen which should be an en-dash, ref 74 should be p not pp. Most BBC references should have a date field, e.g. 53 was published on 13 April 2009. Ref 93 should link FIFA (since you've linked BBC). Ref 104 has a different date format from others. Check 63 and 64 too. Plus you could link New Scientist. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all done. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 20:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except for ref 73... needs a date. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 09:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is picking the nits off the nits but I'm still niggled by the inconsistency on when you link and when you don't link publisher and work in the {{cite web}} template. You seem to link BBC always, but not Football Association or Football League. You link The Independent but not When Saturday Comes. Is there a method? Otherwise I'm happy. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are all now linked. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 12:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on image grounds as follow:

File:Luton Town.svg: is this a copyrighted image? If yes, it is definitely not low in resolution (hence preventing possible commercial misuse) by any means. If no, by what means is it not copyrighted?

File:Luton Town 1919.jpg: no proof that this was published in 1920. It could have been just as easily first published in 1935 as the club's 50th anniversary year book.

File:LutonTownFCBadge1973-1987.png: "because it represents the subject of this article.", so what? Is that not what File:Luton Town.svg supposed to be for? What aspects of this logo cannot be described by words alone, and what significance does it have to the subject (this significance should be in the text of the article)?

File:LutonTown19942005.png: very thin commentary on this old logo. The commentary is plain description; there is not a feel of historical significance to require a knowledge of this design. While File:LutonTownFCBadge1973-1987.png is different enough from the current logo (and is the very first club badge to boot), this 1994 badge has elements already shown in the current logo and need not illustration to have readers envisage what it could look like.

File:LutonTownFCLeaguePositions.png: where did the data for this chart come from?

~~Other~~ Images are verifiably in the public domain on appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I am not certain why the nationalities of the players/managers have to be emphasized with flags. Are they fighting out an international competition within the club? Is there some controversy within the club over the nationalities of the players? Why are we displaying nationalities of players in a club that is not representing a country? Jappalang (talk)

On your first point, I did not make the SVG (I do not know how) and therefore have no control over it. If you feel so strongly about it, then we'll have to get somebody else to look into making it smaller.
- Arteyu has very helpfully made it smaller. Does it now meet your satisfaction? – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 09:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the image to one published in 1909, if it makes you happier.
On the badges, I've removed the second one, but kept the first. In my eyes this badge is significant to the club's history and therefore should be kept.
I'd added my source to the chart's description page.
On the flags, see here. It is MoS that for a sportsperson should have their sporting nationality illustrated.

Cheers, – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 06:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is copyrighted, then we should not allow possible high resolution exploitation of the image for us to claim fair use. SVGs do not lose details when resized; hence they would come into conflict with policies. It is better to use a PNG in this case (File:Luton Town.png, which I have done so.

I've changed the logo back to SVG, please refer to Manchester City F.C. & Everton F.C., just want to show you some example of many Featured Article football club that uses SVGified logo Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 11:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Other stuff exists" is not a sufficient argument I'm afraid. I've switched it back. You're well intentioned mate, but I think that for copyrighted stuff PNG is the way to go – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 13:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For File:LutonTownFCBadge1973-1987.png, you would have to rewrite the fair-use rationale in the image's page. "because it represents the subject of this article." is no longer correct since the new badge is representing the subject. The FUR should stress the significance of this badge and what aspects cannot be accurately represented with words.
File:LutonTown190910.jpg: yes, the caption ("Luton Town were ninth in the Southern League last season.") does imply this image was published in 1910. However, we need a source from where this image was obtained. Judging from its quality, it is a scan. From which publication is this from? At the very least, supply the website this is obtained from. Unfortunately, this is a British work. To store items on Commons, the works must be public domain in US, and in the work's country of origin (UK in this case). As no proof is given that Cox died more than 70 years ago, this image is not public domain in UK. In fact, if this Cox from Luton is William Harold Cox, then he was still alive 50 years ago.[13][14][15] Move this image to Wikipedia and use {{PD-1923}} and {{Do not move to Commons}}.

Awaiting feedback and actions. Jappalang (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the SVG/PNG, ok.
OK, I've done as you asked.
OK, I've done as you asked.

– Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 13:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LutonTown1909-10.jpg: point the source to the page (html) that displays the image; do not point directly to the image's link. In this case, historykits has disabled direct linking, so we cannot verify the image's presence. Jappalang (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed?

– Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 13:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be clearer, the source is currently "http://historicalkits.co.uk/Luton_Town/photos/luton-town-1909-10.jpg". It should not be that. It should be the html page that hosts that image. Jappalang (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed?

– Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 13:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comment Luton Town was a founder member of the Southern Football League in 1894, and, after finishing as runners-up in its first two seasons, the team left to help form the United League. - seems clunky to me. Would Luton Town was a founder member of the Southern Football League in 1894, although, after finishing as runners-up in its first two seasons, the club transferred to the United League. be better. Otherwise the article is much better than their football (: jimfbleak (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. It should be emphasised that the club was a founder member of the United League as well as the Southern. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 07:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Fantastic work, I've noticed a few bits and bobs.
- I think it would flow better if the brackets in "(the Conference National)" were replaced with commas.
- The "south of England" link needs changing to Southern England.
- "...record for most league..." --> "...record for the most league..."?
- For most of the article, the "First Division" (as opposed to "Division One") format is used, but this consistency is disrupted in footnote B.
Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. Thanks – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 16:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Now comments have been resolved. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) My turn.

~~"Luton Town was a founder member " Not "Luton Town were..."?~~
- No.
~~"became a director of the club" So they had multiple directors at any given time?~~
- Yes, English football clubs have loads.
~~"from the northern heartlands of the Football League, crippled" No comma.~~
- Ok.
~~"ten point deduction"-->ten-point deduction~~
- Ok.
~~"in order to make Luton Town more recognisable." "in order" is almost always unnecessary.~~
- Ok.
~~"when they spent a solitary season in orange and blue" "solitary" is probably unnecessary.~~
- Ok.
~~"in time for the start of 1905–06." Can you append "season" to the end of that? "...for the start of the 1905–06 season."~~
- Ok.
~~"road which runs along"-->road that runs along~~
- Ok.
~~"Both records will almost certainly stand until the club relocates to a larger ground, as Kenilworth Road's present capacity is less than half of either of these figures." Source?~~
- Ok.
~~Footnotes B and C need refs, maybe?~~
- No they don't. It's a very well known fact.

Dabomb87 (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 22:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:16, 7 July 2009 [16].

SECR N class

Nominator(s): Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has just gone through peer review, and all issues have been addressed. The article is on course for FA, and any further suggestions for improvement will be gratefully received. Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Just a few initial comments:

In the lead, "class" is treated as both singular and plural: "The SECR N class were ..." and "the class represents an important stage ...". I would have thought it should be consistently singular?

There's sometimes an awful lot of "locomotives" very close together in some places: The new locomotive was designed prior to the K class passenger tank locomotive in 1914 to address the SECR's requirement for a sturdy mixed-traffic locomotive ...". Would "engine" or "unit" be acceptable variations in such cases, just to add a bit interest?

What does "finally" mean in this extract from First SECR batch: "... a sharply tapered boiler and finally right-hand drive ..."? Is that the final one in the list of ideas, or were the locomotives initially designed to left-hand drive, with later models being right-hand drive?

This, from Operational details and preservation is unclear: "... the class migrated from the Southern Railway's Eastern section to work on the Central and Western sections, where a robust and reliable design such as the N class was to see use throughout the Southern Railway era". Why "was to see use" instead of the straightforward "saw"? The phrase "such as" as well makes me wonder if it was the N class that saw service throughout the Southern Railway era or another class or classes like it.

~~Was the class's nickname "Woolworths" or "Woolworth"? The article seems to be inconsistent.~~

--Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's comment.

Ok, I've tried to address these concerns, and I think that both have been resolved. However, it may benefit from another look at the plural and singular issue. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also have an issue over whether I should use 'is' or 'was' in the leader, as one class member still exists. As a result, I'm getting confused, so could someone suggest a compromise? Whilst I've changed it to 'is', I'm starting to feel that 'was' would be the better tense. Read the leader to see what I mean... --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above issue I have raised is now resolved. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's comment. I have addressed Malleus's observation above. As usual, these issues slip through the net when writing the article, and it is only when scrutinised from 'outside' that they are found and dealt with. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I peer reviewed this and believe that due to the changes made there and subsequently, this article meets the FAC criteria. I do think that the first sentence of the lead (now reading The SECR N class is a class of 2-6-0 (mogul) steam locomotive designed by Richard Maunsell for mixed-traffic duties ...) would read better in the past tense (i.e. The SECR N class was a class of 2-6-0 (mogul) steam locomotive ...). The rest of the lead refers to the class in the past tense and reserves the present for the surviving member. I also think of a "class" as one of those odd singular nouns referring to a group (like army). The class has ceased to be, even if one member of it survives. My only other comment is that I wish there were more images available, but understand it can be difficult to obtain free images of locomotives (so this is NOT an actionable item, just a wish). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I'm inclined to agree that 'was' sounds right here. -- EdJogg (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think I'd be inclined to go with "was" too. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Comment -- That's settled then, I've changed it to 'was'. I may be able to get another image when I have time, but it's a works photograph of one of the experimental types, so not necessarily representative. It'll add a bit of variety, though. Will add it tomorrow. Cheers for the hard work already done to improve the article so far, especially to Iain Bell for coming up with the history of the N class boilers. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed title to Woolworths batch. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: problems in the prose. Grammar, flow, organisation and cohesion are all issues and need to be fixed throughout. An independent copy-edit is required. Here are examples from the top. A recurring issue is fuzziness in the grammatical subjects of clauses—most unusual.

"three-cylinder", since there are lots of numerals in the vicinity?
Is "Woolworths" intended to be humorous? I don't get it.
"They were able to operate over most of the Southern Railway network after grouping in 1923,"—the last three words are pipe-linked to a 1921 act of parliament. It's a bit opaque, and we shouldn't have to hit the link to learn what it all means. "blah blah of 1923, in which ....".
the new class attempted to ease maintenance? Suggest different grammar.
"Outside of"—which word is redundant?
"Designed in 1914 by Maunsell to address the SECR's operational problems, caused by obsolescent mixed-traffic designs running on poorly laid track-work, production of the N class was delayed by the outbreak of the First World War." Remove comma after "problems"? Is track-work or are tracks poorly laid? So the production was designed? (I'm trying to locate the main subject of the sentence.)
"outside Walschaerts valve gear"—we couldn't say "external", could we? (But keep if "outside" is normal in your field.)
equipped with tenders? Tony (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Editor's Comments - Tony, whilst you have in-depth knowledge of the use of language and the written word, I think there is some room for lee-way here, as there are editors who are trying to cut through the prose issues. I therefore invite you to copy-edit the article on our behalf, to show us how it should be done, so to speak. Anyway, here are a few comments in response to the issues you highlighted

It's clearly not Tony's job to copyedit the article, but to provide a helpful critique. In that light an example or two of "fuzziness in the prose" would be helpful, and I'd agree with him that it still needs some tightening up. I think we know how it should be done, and how to fix problems when they're pointed out. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "3-cylinder/three-cylinder" issue has been thrown about like a hot potato several times, and at one stage in an earlier FA I used the word format only for it to be changed back again.

"Woolworths" is most certainly not a joke, and there are references stating this as a nickname for the class.
I don't see why every railway-related article should have to recite the history of the grouping every time the word appears, which is why linking it to the appropriate section in the appropriate article is better.
I agree with you on the fourth point, but as usual, it is because you have the benefit of "strategic distance".
"Outside of"- where is it? I can't find this when searching through the text.

I already removed the "of" from "outside of". --Malleus Fatuorum 18:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With greatest respect, I don't see what you are getting at on the fifth point, either...
You are correct, "Outside" is the proper terminology for an "External" cylinder.

Thank you for your input, though.

--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's Comments - Having taken Tony's critique of the article into consideration, and having a good read of the prose, I am also inclined to agree that the article needs a lot of tightening up. With this in mind, I have removed a fair amount of 'fuzz' and fluff, and have hopefully cut the article back to its essentials, which can be worked upon by more objective editors. In case any offense was caused by my above comments, I apologise, but the way the oppose was made seemed a bit undiplomatic upon first read.

Now this has been said, I will take a back-seat whilst the article takes its course, only improving blatant prose issues, and any changes to factual content. Regards, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support after a fair bit of thought. I agree that it doesn't always meet the whole "brilliant refreshing prose" thing, but there's so much dry technical information that needs to be included, by definition occasional parts need to go into technical detail in a way that's incompatible with 1a; although I'm a great fan of "background fluff" when it's possibly to add it, that's not the case if it comes at the cost of sacrificing accuracy. There are a few things I think ought to be explained more (at least in footnotes), such as the colour scheme (no general reader should be expected to know what "Maunsell grey" or "Maunsell-style green livery with Bulleid gilt lettering" mean), but these are minor points. On an article like this, I think the pertinent points are "why was it built?", "what did it do?", "how did it differ from others?" and "what happened to it?", and this meets all of those; criteria 1a is an important principle, but shouldn't encourage fluff over accuracy. Besides, the highly technical prose is generally the professional standard in the field of engineering history. – iride scent 22:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's Comments - Taking into account the issues highlighted on the talk page, I have done a complete redraft of the Background which hopefully adds to, rather than detracts from the article. It is fully referenced, and I hope it satisfies why the locomotive was designed in the first place, as well as the wider situation on the SECR. All that needs to be done is to improve the prose if need be, and in that respect, I commend it to whoever wants to take up the baton. The facts are there, it just needs polishing up. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done a quick-fix regarding the livery issue, click on Southern Railway at the top of the 'Livery and numbering' section. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These look good to me. I made two minor copyedits, but have reread the whole article just now and did not find any other errors. My only suggestion is to consider whether it would help to incorporate inline color samples. So something like "This Maunsell grey livery was introduced by the SECR as a wartime economy measure." This is only an idea - not sure if it would work or not. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's Comments - We could select the relevant liveries from the bunch in the Southern Railway article and put them in a row at the end of the section? It would also give a bit of chronology, as D L Bradley discusses the general changes in Southern Railway livery in his books on former LSWR locomotives. Another idea would be to just wikilink each livery back to the Southern Railway page, which would negate the need to have that italicised sentence at the start of the section giving instructions. What's the consensus? --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ ~~EDIT: Neutral for now pending further prose review.~~ Switched to support. Steve ^T • C Mainly the prose. It's not far away, and likely passable during the expected timescale of this FAC, so don't worry too much yet (see the link for why I've registered an oppose, rather than mere "comments"). It's already been established above that some fine-tuning is required, and several people seem to be in the process of making improvements, so to save space I'll try to limit my comments for now to content only. As always, there's no requirement to change anything in the article to get my !vote; if there's a good editorial reason for the way something is, I'll be happy to strike the concern:

Background

—probably the weakest section overall in terms of the writing, but that's not surprising (or a big problem) given the wholesale changes it's had; if we can get this right, it'll set the article up nicely.

"... a legacy of competent but unspectacular locomotives that did little to improve the SECR’s motive power situation." Something is lacking here, and I think it's context. At this point in the article there is no indication that there is anything wrong with SECR's "motive power situation"; that comes later, in the text about the increased loadings, rubbish tracks and weak bridges. Everything in that sentence after "locomotives" can probably be discarded; perhaps rework the text that follows to provide the necessary detail that as time went on these locomotives became increasingly inadequate to cope with the new developments.
The first paragraph is repetitive: "Three factors dictated the type of locomotive that could operate on the SECR: increased train loadings, poor track quality and weak bridges ... ever-increasing demands on the SECR's infrastructure, with trains increasing in both length and weight ... whilst many of the bridges were lightly built." Could these be woven together more tightly to eliminate the redundancies?
"On the former London, Chatham and Dover Railway lines beach pebbles had been used for ballast." As a layperson, I haven't been given enough information to tell me why using beach pebbles for ballast creates a problem. Is it simply that they represent an increase in weight?
"All of these factors conspired to make the SECR a difficult railway to operate." This serves only to pad the section out without giving the reader anything of worth, as that has already been conveyed pretty clearly.
Suggestion only: to the layperson, talk of 2-6-0 / 0-6-0 wheel arrangements might not be completely clear; would it be of any use to include a schematic from the Commons, a modified version of this image showing just those two configurations, or at least a prominent piped link to Whyte notation?

Design details and construction history

Suggestion: "Design and construction" as a title tells us exactly the same thing as "Design details and construction history"
- Comment: The amended article titles are better, but structure it oddly. The construction section contains a lot of design details, as the different batches differed in many ways. I still think the more appropriate structure would be to have the current "Design" section incorporated into "Construction" as an introductory paragraph, with the overall heading called "Design and construction" or similar. But I'm not going to quibble, or let such a minor point alone lead to opposition.

Second "Woolwich" batch and exports to Ireland

"The cost of the maintenance burden imposed by the incompatible classes operated by the SECR at the end of the First World War meant that standardisation became a priority for the company." We've already been told exactly this in the design section's introductory paragraph.
Suggestion only: give your eyes a treat and create stubs for the redlinked GSR K1 class and GSR K1a class? Even if you only create redirects to the appropriate section of a parent article, it'll be better than giving those links undue prominence by having the readers' eyes drawn to the red.

Operational details and preservation

Slight inconsistency. The lead states that "One N class locomotive is preserved on the Watercress Line in Hampshire." This section states that "Only a single member of the class has been preserved ... and is currently stored pending overhaul"; if the locomotive is currently in storage, it's not in active service on the line, which the lead sort of implies.

Further reading

The inclusion of such a section sometimes indicates that not all resources have been tapped for information, and that the article may not satisfy 1b. Does the book listed here include any major details that would be relevant to the article? If so, they should be included; if not, it may be appropriate to eliminate the section altogether.

General

Review for manual of style consistency, especially on the use of endashes, hyphens etc. Random examples: "From 1949–1950" ("from" and "to" are complementary; if you spell one out, you should the other too); "Reynolds, pp. 155-156" (hyphen should be endash); "Tonbridge-Hastings" (disjunction—conveys the sense of to or through, so that hyphen should also be an endash).

—That's all for now; when more prose improvements have been made (or if you request some specific examples of passages that don't quite work), I'll take another look. Nice work so far, Steve ^T • C 13:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Editor's comments -- in response to Steve...

With regard to the preserved loco status, that may be my fault for suggesting at peer review that it be removed from the lede. My thinking was that we don't want to edit the lede every time its operational status changes. It is highly unlikely that it will ever be scrapped, and therefore it can probably be considered "preserved" whether working or not. This has implications in other articles, so would be interesting to get a view on this matter here. EdJogg (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Bulleid Pacific (talk) has now addressed all the issues specifically raised by Steve. Both BP and myself have had a go at the "Background" section -- mine slightly more radical. I hope we have tackled most of the remaining repetition. The most noticeable still present concerns increases in train loading, and each instance is covering a slightly different point; hopefully, this is no longer an issue. The only sentence I am still unhappy with is that concerning the "small beach pebbles". I have linked to track ballast, where there is a description of the properties of good ballast, but the explanation of the problem in the article seems to be lacking something. I have been unable to adjust it without extending the sentence excessively. (The significant point is that conventional ballast is made from small pieces of crushed rock, the irregular faces locking together and preventing lateral track movement: round pebbles from the beach can't do this (presumably it is the sheer bulk weight of pebbles that limits movement rather than their shape).)

EdJogg (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE -- An explanation has now been provided regarding the problems with the ballast, and a little extra detail correcting the history of the preserved locomotive. I think that's everything for now. EdJogg (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super. Sorry for the delay, but it'll be this evening before I can get around to reviewing the changes to strike those issues that have been resolved (a quick glance looks good so far). Steve ^T • C 15:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck oppose; listed content objections have been dealt with speedily and with good grace. Will take another look at the prose in a day or so. Nice work. Steve ^T • C 23:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten about this, but as the article seems to be in the middle of a copyedit, I'm holding off a re-review until that's done. Let me know, either here or on my talk page, when you're ready for me to take another look. All the best, Steve ^T • C 11:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's Comments - After a lot of work by EdJogg, the prose has been dealt with to form a much more coherent article. Any further issues will be dealt with, but as for factual content, the article is complete. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Done -- actually, that one was introduced since we started the FAC process! (I checked and cleared the DAB issues as the first thing done after FAC started.) --- EdJogg (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The prose has had a lot of attention from several editors; while I'm sure someone would be able to find something to nitpick (there was one during my recent light c/e that I couldn't figure how to resolve; I'll leave that to the primary editors), I think it's at a good enough level to become featured. From what I can tell through a brief independent check, it seems comprehensive, and it presents an overview of the topic that is understandable to the general reader as well as experts. Nice work, Steve ^T • C 12:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I have reworked the sentence referred to above and requested Steve to review and confirm my modifications... -- EdJogg (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC) -- ...which he has now done. EdJogg (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image concern for the only image as follows:

~~File:BR Class N 31871 Plymouth 1948.jpg: please go through the OTRS process for this image; i.e. forward the emails to the OTRS team and attach the ticket to the image.~~

~~Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

I have sent an OTRS request, as the file includes a link to a permission email. Unfortunately the source appears to be down, so it could be very difficult to follow this up beyond the available information. EdJogg (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, it has been archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20070207103731/www.planefacts.co.uk/railway/main/index.htm. Jappalang (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well-found! I couldn't track it down. Thankfully, all the pictures have been archived too. EdJogg (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a moment. Is this photo taken by Richard H Huelin himself? It does not seem so on the index page: "These all appear to have been taken in either the late 1940's or early 1950's. Unfortunately the detail I have about them is sparse." If he is not the author, I am afraid even an OTRS ticket would not help. Where did he obtain the photograph from? Jappalang (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an image on Flickr here of one of these locomotives which is clearly by the original photographer. Not sure if he would be amenable to having it here if contacted. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about File:Ropley Station on the Mid-Hants Railway.jpg? Jappalang (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's severely cropped, and still not ideal (you can see little below footplate level, and its barely possible even to see the wheel arrangement!) but it is clearer than the other picture, it's free for our use (thank you for finding it!) and it gets us out of a hole. I'll swap it over now... -- EdJogg (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

Intro. There's a mention of SEC-Ks. Because a link is made between the two locomotives, it needs to be made clear here that these were also of Maunsell's design, but served a somewhat different purpose.
The Background begins with a long paragraph that indicates that things happened over time (eg. the number of passengers increased etc) but gives no time frame at all. At least one date is an absolute necessity, and several would be an asset.
I was interested in reading about the problems with the balast.

Amandajm (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's response

I have adjusted the offending section in the lede. The change also reinforces the link between 'It' (2nd sentence) and the N class (1st sentence), which is useful.

"Background" changes will need input from User:Bulleid Pacific, as he has the ref books!! As for the timing, I had always read this as a/the period that the SECR were running, up to the introduction of the N Class.

Glad you liked the bit about the ballast!

EdJogg (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Editor's comment Just back from my holiday. Have added a few dates to put the Background section's first paragraph into context. I've also amended a few other issues raised on the article's talk page to clarify and simplify, as there is little to be done without going into original research if other texts don't refer to them. I'm surprised no-one has found an original works photograph of an N class, as this would be out of copyright by now. I have a couple of attributed images that have expired copyrights (taken between 1923 and 1940); I'll have to dig them out. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ==July 2009==
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bedřich Smetana/archive1}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Matthew Boulton/archive1}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maiden Castle, Dorset/archive1}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ostend Manifesto/archive1}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Australian Magpie/archive1}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo Wars/archive1}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Luton Town F.C./archive1}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SECR N class/archive1}}