Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/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 SandyGeorgia 23:40, 11 July 2009 [1].

---

2009 Orange Bowl

Nominator(s): JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article in verse,
and you probably haven't heard an idea that is worse.

I stole the idea from Jappalang,
and for that I probably should hang.

This article is well-written and complete,
and for prose quality it can't be beat.

Its citations have been checked,
and its grammar has been pecked.

I'd like to thank Ealdgyth, Strikehold, Giants2008, and Maralia;
Their suggestions certainly didn't cause melancholia.

Any comments, concerns, or questions would be worth more than a particle,
but if you're wondering why I didn't use the name of the article ...

It's because nothing rhymes with orange. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Like JKBrooks said, I gave the article a pre-FAC review, and all my comments were resolved. I think it looks good, so despite being subjected to the above, I'm still going to support : ) Strikehold (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I know my verse / can be a curse, / but I'm sure you've seen worse. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for the second link check. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - meets FA requirements. Dincher (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review: two appropriately licensed photos and one logo, which I think meets the lowest bar for non-free identification of the main subject (stricter standards would disagree). Preferably, a photo of the most significant moment of the match (if any) should be it, but as pointed out, if there is none, any shot becomes a non-descript photo of play that fails to differentiate the match from any other... Jappalang (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Just wanted to add that the logo used in the article is for this, and only this, particular game, the 2009 edition of the Orange Bowl. It's my belief that even the most stringent interpretation of our policies allows for the fair use of the logo that represents the subject of the article itself. And it meets the guideline specifically for logos. Strikehold (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment:
Now sir, what ye sayeth is not true,
It can rhyme through and through.
Once young, I came upon an orange,
Which has been squeezed into a haliborange. Jappalang (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

Still recovering from fatigue after attending last night's/this morning's New York Yankees game,
but not reviewing another Virginia Tech bowl article would be such a shame.

On the talk page, I gave a partial review pre-FAC,
how much it helped, we shall soon see.

• Game summary: Non-breaking spaces needed for dollar amounts. And add one more in Post-game effects.
• Can we find the first names of the officials? I would be surprised if they couldn't be found in a box score somewhere. If not, put a space in the middle of J.Quinn.

• I was actually kind of surprised that I wasn't able to find the first names of the officials. Both schools' copies of the box scores had just the initial, and the game broadcast (which I have a copy of and consulted) didn't mention them, either.

• On a brief search, I couldn't find them anywhere. Not a big deal, even though it leaves the initials bare. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Third quarter: This game summary is not easy for me to find fault with (of course, I'm useless for spotting jargon), but I found some close repetition here: "The ball was fumbled by returner Danny Milligan, but Milligan recovered the loose ball and returned it to the Cincinnati 20-yard line." Change the second Milligan to "he"?
• Fourth quarter: Either remove Tony Pike's first name from the second paragraph, or place it earlier.
• "With the clock continuing to tick down" → "As the clock continued to tick down"
• "to wind down the game clock and bring the game to an end." Second part is repetitive with the first. Perhaps use "contest" near the end of the sentence.
• Statistical summary: Would prefer if three straight sentences didn't start with "He".
• "giving him 23 field goals and breaking the Tech single-season record for successful field goals." "field goals" repeats itself here.

The article looks great,
and I'm glad I got to read the rest before it was too late.

I'll keep an eye on this, but may need some time,
as I must think of more words that rhyme. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• The changes have been made, and I hope your attention does not fade. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• With the changes done, I'm supporting this page. Have to run, before my bad rhymes cause outrage. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you! JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, see below Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) to help this article reach FAC heaven:

• "EST" should be spelled out and defined on the first appearance just like the other abbreviations.
• "after the game, players from each team entered the National Football League (NFL) via the 2009 NFL Draft." The exact number (of players from each team) would be nice; it's always better to be precise.
• Use "Before" instead of "Prior to", why use two words when one will do? (multiple occurences)
• "The Cincinnati Bearcats ended the 2007 college football season with a 10–2 final record" "ended ... final" redundancy.
• "the game in order to better simulate the feel"
• "moved up the team's departure." moved up the date, I assume.
• "Various travel agencies offered"
• I know 'tis like a curse, but we must follow MOS for better or for worse. Comparable quantities should be written the same, and there are inconsistencies you must tame. (ex: "2,168 yards, 18 touchdowns, and seven interceptions")
• "He also scored 10 touchdowns"
• "Evans became just the sixth freshman in the history"
• "The ceremonial performance of the national anthem was played by Arturo Sandoval" Performed on trumpet, I assume? Please clarify.
• "Frank Beamer ordered kicker Dustin Keys" "sent" seems like a better work than "ordered".
• "With time running out in the first half"-->While time was running out in the first half
• "Cincinnati's offense sputtered and could not gain another first down" Imprecise subject; It was Cincinnati, not their offense that could not gain a first down.

• But it was their offense that did not gain a first down.

• Very true, good sir / it is to your knowlege that I will defer. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I quite like this rhyming thing; I'm watching this page, so no need to ping. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm glad you're paying attention; getting reviews sometimes feels like detention. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Do not fear, for the time when I shall re-review is near. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• FAC can't be rushed. My anticipation will be hushed. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• "The Hokies had time for just one play"
• "as Pike completed three consecutive passes: a 16-yard throw to Gilyard, a three-yard toss to Goodman, and a 14-yard pass to Gilyard"-->as Pike completed three consecutive passes: a 16-yarder to Gilyard, a 3-yarder to Goodman, and a 14-yarder to to Gilyard
• "began to run out the clock" section link this to Running out the clock#American football.
• "Taylor began kneeling on the ball to wind down the game clock" In football kneeling down is not a continuous action, it's a set play. How many times did he kneel it?
• "recording 97 yards in that department." "department" isn't that encyclopedic, how about "category"?
• "Each team found some success on special teams as well"
• "but he successfully converted "
• "boost due to visitors arriving to watch the two games" noun + -ing is awkward.
• Do any of the notes need references? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• More changes have been made. As to the last item, you tell me. I don't think they do. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Here is my humble opinion:

• Note 1 is a statistic, surely not common knowledge. I think it should be cited.
• Note 2 is easily found. No need for a cite.
• Note 3 is not common knowledge, and is about a living person. This definitely should be cited.
• Note 4, not really, although a link to redshirt would be nice.
• Note 5, I think the second sentence might be cited.
• Note 6, I think a cite would be nice.
• Obviously not Note 7. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• All changed except for the redshirt one. The wikilink is at the originating point of the footnote. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see any citations added, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Now that's embarrassing ... I guess I didn't save my changes. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've tried to get them in place, but it doesn't look as though it worked ... is there anyone who could clean up the mess I've made? JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• See this; you need to use the #tag trick. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

*The #tag trick doesn't seem to work within infoboxes. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The two Sun Sentinel links have gone dead. I know I supported already, but pointing them out was in my head. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Damn. Replaced by offline citations. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Support I gave this a thorough review for prose and MOS just before FAC. As I said there, I find it eminently understandable even for the football-challenged (i.e. me), and I'm confident that it meets the criteria. Maralia (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Images need alt text (discussion). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Neat idea! I can see how that'd help folks with screen readers use Wikipedia. Alt text has been added. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Support A joy to review, a pleasure to read;
I'll leave you with a support and this tweak to the lead. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:40, 11 July 2009 [2].

---

Mariano Rivera

Nominator(s): Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... all of the concerns brought up during the first FAC have been addressed and an attempt to generalize the article topic has been made. I would like the article to reach Featured Article status by the time Rivera saves his 500th game - hopefully, if that happens, the article would be used as a timely Featured Article on the Main Page. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. This article has come a long way and is in really good shape. I made a few changes to improve the flow of certain paragrahps and feel there are a couple of other places where flow could still be improved, but it is good enough that I would not oppose on those grounds. There is just one minor change I would like to see before I actually support: the account of Rivera's blown save in Game 7 of the 2001 World Series should really include his throwing error to second base, which was a crucial moment in the final outcome. Indrian (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Generally well-written and comprehensive. Indrian (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - the last FAC for this article was just closed on 14 June 2009, generally it's a good idea to wait more than 5 days to renominate. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• The guidelines say you should wait a few weeks to resolve the issues before renominating, but the FAC was closed right after I had just addressed several issues that had been brought up, and up to that point, I had promptly resolved everything that came up. I'm not sure what waiting a few weeks would really do for the article. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you check with the previous opposers to see if their issues were resolved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of the previous opposers who commented on the nomination page changed to "support" the article. The one's that did not reply to my attempts at addressing their issues have been contacted on their talk pages. Many of these items that I have been fixing never came up in the Good Article review or the peer review, so this is the first time I've had them pointed out to me - and it's good they are being pointed out now. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There were actually two opposers at the first FAC, including Laser brain; his had been there for almost two weeks. The second opposer wasn't nearly as persuasive to me, though he did have a few pertinent points. On balance I think the article has improved from when it first came to FAC, but I do wish the second nomination had come 2-3 weeks later, as the instructions recommend. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Both opposers were contacted before I contacted anyone who supported the article. I would have waited on this nomination, but I felt like the first was closed prematurely just as constructive feedback was being made, I (seemingly) fixed all concerns that were addressed, and I would like to have this article become a FA before Rivera reaches 500 saves. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I'm slightly embarrassed, I added this to my watchlist ages ago as Mo is my favorite player, intending to one day sit down and fix this article. Someone beat me to the punch though! :) Author fixed a massive list of notes in the previous FAC, really looks like he fixed everything, not sure why it didn't draw more support. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger's first thoughts

• I find the current opening sentence unidiomatic. See other FAs such as Sandy Koufax, J. R. Richard, and Orval Grove.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It is better now, but it should mention that he has spent his whole career with the Yankees like the other articles I mentioned above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Why did you separate one-sentence one-line paragraph? Do you intend to expand it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to have it mirror the other baseball player FA's. I'll connect it with the 2nd paragraph instead. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Pitching mostly in relief, he allowed an average of 0.17 earned runs per nine innings (see earned run average, or ERA)" seems odd in an article about baseball. All you need to say is "Pitching mostly in relief, he posted a 0.17 earned runs average (henceforth E.R.A.)," with the word linked. It is not unlike any other baseball statistic. Just link it and use it in proper and normal context.
• I think "As a 25-year-old rookie with major arm surgery in his past," would better as ""As a 25-year-old rookie with prior (or previous) major arm surgery,"
• Can you add current dollars to the "US$3,000 signing bonus on February 17, 1990". See the conversion function in use at Fountain of Time. It will help to conceptualize a generation of inflation in the US to international readers.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• "number of home runs he allowed across the entire previous season" - across seems unidiomatic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean (e.g. unidiomatic?). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe across is an ungrammatical preposition in its current use.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Should be fixed - I replaced it with "in". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Support-My issues are now resolved. The article is even better than the prior FAC, which I believe I supported.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Images reviewed in previous FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Looks like a great article. Wikipediarules2221 22:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support Look like all major issues have been resolved. BUC (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Looks perfect. Adam Penale (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support I can't find anything wrong with it. Good detail, well written and sourced. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support. Looks pretty good overall, but a few points.
• I would avoid introducing acronyms and abbreviations in the lead section unless they're used again in the lead. Some percentage of readers just look at the lead and nothing else, and thus don't need to know about MLB, AL, and ERA. (I'd rewrite the second 'MLB' as 'major leaguer'.) You can then introduce the acronyms and abbreviations the first time they're used in the body.

I would disagree - readers are going to see the lead first and foremost, so it stands that important terms and concepts should be introduced there. Furthermore, they may jump around the article without reading it from the start, meaning they could miss the initial mention of the unabbreviated term. I don't think it hurts to show the abbreviation in the lead. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• The sentence "Raybourn was surprised that scouts had shown interest in Rivera a year later as a pitcher.[9]" doesn't seem to connect well - why the surprise?

Raybourn didn't think Rivera had a future in the MLB, nor did he expect Rivera to have changed positions. I've rephrased it as "shown interest in Rivera as a pitcher a year later". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Any explanation for why Rivera gained speed on his fastball in his mid-20s? Seems kind of unusual.

There isn't an explanation - just one of the great mysteries about Rivera. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a source that says that, it would be a good addition. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Will add when I find a reference. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Was 1998 really the beginning of his cutter? What was his 'out' pitch before then?

He developed it in 1997, but only really featured it as a pitcher in 1998. He didn't have a specific out pitch, per se, before then. He mostly relied on variations of a fastball. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Up where the cutter is introduced, I'd add something somewhere about how many batters get their bats broken trying to hit him - that's another one of his trademarks. I know it's mentioned in a section at the end, but it's worth being in twice, as it graphically illustrates how tough he is to hit.

Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant 'penchant' not 'pension', but I'm not sure a penchant is something you earn. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Rephrased to say "earned a reputation for breaking hitter's bats". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a cite for 2001 and "Rivera's year ended with one of his most disappointing moments" - it seems to contradict the later ""I am glad we lost the World Series," Rivera told Wilson, "because it means that I still have a friend."[101]"

How would you rephrase this moment then to signify it was the low point in his career? He did feel better about the loss when he realized the consequences it had in the bigger picture, but in the perspective of his career, it was his worst moment. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I would phrase it as observers believing it was the low point in his career, with a cite. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Rephrased to say "infamous" instead of "disappointing". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Speaking of trademarks, you could add that Rivera became so associated with "Enter Sandman" that when Billy Wagner came to the Mets with the same entrance song, there was quite a fan/press hullabaloo that Wagner should switch to something else.

That is a good point, but I'm not sure how to seamlessly weave it into the 2006 season summary - and it seems to me that the "controversy" was invented by the New York press because they had no familiarity with Billy Wagner or his entrance music. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I talked with Yankees fans who were genuinely upset, because they felt Wagner was barging in on Rivera's special association, even if he had used the song before. You might also add that Rivera had/has no clue who Metallica are. Material like this is good for the article because it adds a human interest element into what otherwise inevitably becomes a dry recitation of reliever statistics. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Mentioned in the 2006 season summary. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think "bloop single" needs to be quoted.

Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Before talking about his 3 innings in relief in the 2003 ALCS, you should mention that his normal usage pattern was just the ninth, with occasionally entrances in the eighth, usually with two outs.

I tried to cover this by explaining in the 1997 season summary that he was installed as closer to pitch the 9th innings. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You now say there "to traditionally pitch the ninth innings of games", but as you point out elsewhere, that practice is recent, not old. I'd use a different word. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Rephrased to say "typically" instead of "traditionally". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• In the 2004 ACS coverage, I'd add that the Red Sox went on to win the WS and break the curse, etc - to show how important the Rivera blown saves were.

Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• How does the DHL Delivery Man of the Year Award or the This Year in Baseball's Closer of the Year Award relate to the Rolaids Award previously mentioned? It's kind of confusing. If the point is that there's no one agreed-upon top award for relievers, that should be stated briefly somewhere.

I'm not sure if this is something that is within the scope of the article, but I've prefaced each award with a brief explanation of how the winner is chosen. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I like the use of more sophisticates stats in the "Legacy" section; what about adding WHIP and oppo BA to the career stats section?

There is some debate at Wikipedia:Baseball whether or not a stats table is necessary at all, so I think any additions would be pushing it. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't read that many WP sports articles, so if some of these points are ruled out by WP project guidelines, I will stand corrected. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Some more comments I thought of today:

• Might be worth mentioning that he's seen in all the 'Yankees win the World Series' photos because he's always on the field for the last out (would be really good if there were a usable image of one of these for the article)

This doesn't really seem necessary - it's already mentioned that he closed out 3 consecutive World Series. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Should mention his demeanor is placid, unlike many 'wildman' closers over the years who have unusual appearances, weird mannerisms, over-the-top celebrations after key outs, etc

Done. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• How popular is he with the fans? A good metric might be how his jersey sales compare to those of other star Yanks like Jeter or A-Rod.

I've never come across rankings of baseball jersey sales before. This only seems relevant to basketball or football, where the jersey always has a number printed on it. Otherwise, I think it's hard to classify Rivera's popularity. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Yankee jerseys do have a number on them - maybe you mean that not all of them have a name on them? I found content.com/article/1560495/mlb_baseball_jerseys_finding_the_best.html?cat=14 this blacklisted site that says that Jeter and A-Rod are in the top five nationally (piece together the url); if a better source were found, you could say that Rivera has never risen to their level of fan following. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that baseball jersey sales aren't as widely published as basketball or football jerseys because you have to buy a football/basketball jersey with a number on it. You can buy a blank baseball jersey without a name/number on it, making it difficult to quantify in sales when you can just get a name/number added aftermarket. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• You mention he originally spoke no English, when/where did he learn and how well does he speak it now?

I know he learned it throughout minor/major league baseball, but I haven't come across specific mentions of how he learned it. He just did. He's now an advocate for Hispanic players learning English, and vice versa. I'll make mention of this in the personal life section. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• What commercial endorsements does he have, if any?

As far as I know, Nike is the only endorsement he is involved in, and it is rare to see him in any advertisements for them. I will try to find a reference to this. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

He did that ad for Nike where everyone wore masks representing how their personality/style was viewed, and he was wearing that weird surgical/optometrist thing to represent his accuracy and precision. Beyond that I agree, I can't think of another appearance. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

And there was the TV ad where all the athletes wer saying things that Lance Armstrong can't do, but at the end, he appears and says no one can ride a bike like him. But yeah, that seems like it's it. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Any justification to a screenshot of that Nike-mask ad? It was just so odd... Though I suppose without a bigger discussion of advertising it's not really notable. BTW, with his new salary does Mo crack the Forbes top 100 highest paid athletes list? I think they break it down paycheck + endorsement money, also. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Forbes has a list of highest paid athletes, but they only seem to follow those who made at least $30 million/year, which Rivera does not. If the article is need of any images, it's one of him from the 90s and maybe one of him celebrating a World Series title. The Nike ad was weird, but weirdness isn't enough for us to claim fair use of the ads. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Are there any good quotes from him about how it feels to win championships? Or how to come back from blown save?

I added a quote about his reaction to blowing a save and trying to turn the page - placed it in the "Legacy" section. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I know Rivera's not the most colorful player around, but I'm looking for angles the article can explore beyond just his on-field accomplishments ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• One uncited statement I just noticed. I still support vigorously, but do you have a cite for the bit under personal life about his glove being inscribed with the Bible verse? That's a very factual and direct statement to be left uncited. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:40, 11 July 2009 [3].

---

The Time Traveler's Wife

Nominator(s): Awadewit (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A book about time travel! What isn't fun about that? For those of you who would rather see the movie, it is coming out in August. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I've never reviewed a book FAC, but I do have one question: What was the book's effect on the publishing house? From the page devoted to it and the description in this article, it appears to be a small publisher. I'd imagine that a big hit like this would have a large effect, but I didn't see anything in the article about it. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• I would imagine that as well, but I didn't find any details on that. I see from your userpage that you work for a newspaper. Do you have any further ideas on where to look for sources about MacAdam/Cage? I actually had a hard time finding sources for that article. Perhaps if we put our heads together, we could find some more material that would answer that question. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I don't know much about the book publishing industry. I'm sure there has to be some sort of trade publication out there, but I haven't the slightest idea about which might mention MacAdam/Cage. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Publishers Weekly is the only one I am aware of, which I why I relied on it so heavily on the article. Awadewit (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• There's this New York Times article, which might have a little something (it suggests that, in the long run, the success of the book didn't have a big effect on the publisher).—DCGeist (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't actually see that statement in the article - what sentences are you referring to specifically? Awadewit (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't make that statement. The conclusion is suggested by the statement that MacAdam/Cage "has lately been struggling financially and, in the end, Mr. Regal said [in apparent reference to the auction bids], 'It was just too big a gulf.'”—DCGeist (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure we can draw that conclusion, though. The firm could have done well as a result of the book and subsequently been hit by hard times. Awadewit (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Quite true. In that regard, the source might be useful in combination with any others that might emerge...or it might not have much to offer beside support for the existing New Zealand–based citation on the new novel's auction.—DCGeist (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Leaning to supportSupport, with a slight reservation about the captions point discussed below. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In general, excellent work. The plot summary is particularly engaging and will make people want to buy the book (Abebooks, £1.00 or £1.65) I have a few queries, mostly small quibble but one or two on which I'd like to get your reactions before switching.

• "classified as both science fiction and romance" – classified formally, or just by readers?

• By reviewers. I don't think it is necessary to include this detail in the lead, though. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Save a word: "scheduled to be released" → "scheduled for release"

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• This sentence reads awkwardly: "She wrote the last scene, in which Clare is waiting for Henry as an old woman, first, because it is the focal point of the novel." This is a case where the passive voice might actually improve the prose. Also the old woman description should be aligned with Clare not Henry. I suggest: "The last scene, in which Clare as an old woman is waiting for Henry, was written first, because it is the focal point of the novel." This would also avoid having three succesive sentences starting with "She..."

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Image caption: "Audrey Niffenegger dyed her hair Clare-red to say "goodbye" to the novel after she had finished writing it." This information is not reflected anywhere in the text of the article. Without such a mention in the text, I wonder about the relevance of the image to this section.

• The idea was not to repeat information from the article. Also, at the end of the first paragraph there is a sentence that says: Despite the analogies to her own life in the book, Niffenegger has forcefully stated that Clare is not a self-portrait: "She's radically different. I am much more wilful and headstrong. ... I don't think I could go through a lifetime waiting for someone to appear, no matter how fascinating he was. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Next image caption: "Clare has been compared to Penelope waiting for her Odysseus". Again, there is no reference in the text to this comparison, nor any indication who made it, nor any obvous relation to the "genre" section in which it is located.

• Again, the idea was that the caption information was new. This is one of the many literary allusions in the text and the one mentioned most frequently in the reviews. I thought this was excellent place to put it, because it is just an isolated factoid. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I'm not so sure. If in a book I'm reading I see an illustration with an intriguing caption, I look in the text to find out a bit more. If I find nothing in the text that expands on or even refers to the information in the caption, then I feel a bit aggrieved. My view is that images and their attendant captions should illustrate and inform the text, rather than functioning independently. If the Penelope comparison is mentioned frequently in the reviews, why not say this in the article? Then there is a direct connection to the image and the text. Brianboulton (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• There are differing views on this. See DCGeist below, for example. Awadewit (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Noted, but still not entirely convinced. However, it is not a critical issue for me. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Don't know why, I find this phrasing a little twee: "...whose wife is friends with Niffenegger,..." I think "whose wife is a friend of Niffenegger's" sound slightly more encyclopedic

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Michelle Griffin of The Age, for example,..." The "for example" is a bit intrusive, and not really necessary.

• Removed. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Given the success of the book, I was somewhat unprepared for the critical emphasis in the last paragraph of the Reception section, where terms like "pedestrian", "contrived", "overall clumsiness", "ham-fisted", "long-winded" and "eruption of cliche" crowd in on each other and tend to squeeze out the positive comments. The impression is given of a rather poorly written book that succeeded because of its interesting premise. Is this intentional? Or might it be desirable to aim for a slightly different mix of comment from reviewers?

• The problem is that the negative reviewers are more specific in their criticisms. Positive reviewers tend to say something like "I was up all night reading the book" or "You should run out and buy this book" - comments that do not really explain what about the book was so good. However, even the good reviews tended to have something negative to say about Niffenegger's style. Even so, I have added another sentence praising the character delineation from a source someone was kind enough to send me yesterday. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It is good that you are bringing modern novel articles to Wikipdia. May you long continue to do so. Brianboulton (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I wish I knew why The Times websites are returning false positives for being link dead with the link checker tool..) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your hard work, Ealdgyth! Awadewit (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Looks in good shape overall. Needs one more thorough ce pass, which I can do over the next few days. On the question raised above concerning caption text—it is perfectly good style to present certain information exclusively in caption text and avoid repeating it in the running text. Caption text is in no way less significant than other text; it is simply framed differently. I think Awadewit has made very good (and certainly defensible) structural choices in this regard.—DCGeist (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent copyediting you have already done! Awadewit (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Query: Ordinary style would be to lowercase the term chrono-displacement. Is it capitalized consistently throughout the book?—DCGeist (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes - it is capitalized in the novel. Awadewit (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I think {{Infobox Book}} would be a great addition to this article. Contributions/98.166.139.216 (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes are optional. Personally, I don't see a need, as they just repeat information from the lead. Awadewit (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

But normally a useful way of consistently gathering key information and presenting it in a "tidy" fashion. "Personally" is a key word in what you say. Infoboxes are used extensively throughout wikipedia. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Except there is no "standard" information about a novel. There is no requirement for an infobox at FAC and many FAs don't have them. Awadewit (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Query: The Plot summary is very well written—indeed, I found nothing that unquestionably demands a copyedit. But I want to make sure I'm understanding something correctly. Per the summary...

• Fact: "When 20-year-old Clare meets 28-year-old Henry at the Newberry Library in 1991 at the opening of the novel, he has never seen her before, although she has known him most of her life."
• Fact: "Henry begins time traveling at the age of five."
• Fact: "Henry frequently travels to Clare's childhood and adolescence in South Haven, Michigan, beginning in 1977 when she is six years old."

Now, if all of these facts are presented correctly, we must reach this

• Conclusion: Henry does not travel to Clare's childhood and adolescence during his first 23 years of time traveling. He only starts traveling to her youth after they meet in "natural" time, that is, after he is 28 years old.

Is that correct? If it is, there's no problem, though the kernel of the conclusion (Henry begins traveling to Clare's youth once they meet in "natural" time) might be stated explictly. (Just to be clear, the more one thinks about the conclusion, the more logical and emotional sense it makes, but the conclusion is by no means immediately obvious. Stating it explicitly might be a big <<cough>> time saver for readers...like me.)—DCGeist (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. What do you think is the most elegant way to introduce this in the plot summary? Awadewit (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've taken a stab at it. See what you think.—DCGeist (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think that works well. Awadewit (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I have a concern about the representation of the book's critical reception that bears on a few different passages in the article:

• I think the lede suggests that the general critical reception was largely positive, when it seems to me that (aside from the response to the handling of time travel itself) it was rather mixed. I think the current phrasing (which I did ce, but did so to retain its existing meaning)—"Many reviewers were impressed with Niffenegger's unique perspective on time travel and praised her characterization of the couple, applauding their emotional depth; her writing style was criticized by some who found it melodramatic"—might be adjusted a bit for accuracy: ""Many reviewers were impressed with Niffenegger's unique perspective on time travel. Some praised her characterization of the couple, applauding their emotional depth; others criticized her writing style as melodramatic and the plot as emotionally trite."
  • The characterization of "emotionally trite" was specifically inspired by a reading of Natasha Walter's review in the Guardian, which is referenced in the Themes section, but might also stand to be quoted in the Reception section. The phrase (or something similar) also seems to capture the opinion of some of the other reviewers who are currently quoted.
    • This is fine with me. Awadewit (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• In the Reception section, Heidi Darroch's review in the National Post is cited, anonymously, in support of this claim: "Reviewers praised Niffenegger's characterization of Henry and Clare, particularly their emotional depth." But then she is quoted by name in this passage: "While Griffin praised the plot and concept as 'clever', she complained that Niffenegger's writing is usually 'pedestrian' and the story at times contrived. Heidi Darroch of the National Post agreed, contending that the story has an excess of overwrought emotional moments 'which never quite add up to a fully developed plot.'" Should she really be cited in support of the first claim? It strikes me that she should not and that the claim should be tempered (e.g., "Some reviewers...").
  • She is cited as an example. We can add more cites (but this is really unnecessary, IMO). We can say "some reviewers", but this seems to emphasize a small number and a lot of reviewers emphasized this point - that was a unifying point among the reviews. I would prefer something such as "many" or "most".Awadewit (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    • What concerns me here is the apparent contradiction. How can Darroch be cited as an example of reviewers who praised the "emotional depth" of Henry and Clare when she is characterized as "contending that the story has an excess of overwrought emotional moments"? I suppose its not impossible for one person to hold such apparently contradictory opinions, but it seems highly implausible.—DCGeist (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I can send you the source over email. I think it does support both of these statements. (I've sent you an email through your userpage. If you respond, I can send you the attachment.) Awadewit (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
        • OK. Having read it, while I might have chosen a different set of words, I agree that your position and phrasing are completely defensible. However, the review does point up another issue—apparently the comparison between Clare and Penelope wasn't originally made by a critic (as the caption in the article's image currently suggests), but is introduced in the novel itself. Through the good services of Amazon Look Inside! I found the reference. Page 284: "Every day I work, but nothing ever materializes. I feel like Penelope, weaving and unweaving." Either the caption should be recast, or the original source of the comparison should be introduced in the running text.—DCGeist (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
          • • How about adding a footnote with the novel's reference, although I think this whole endeavor is bordering on OR. This is not the only moment in the novel which is a reference to Penelope. It is just an explicit one that can be found with a keyword search. We don't know which moment in the novel the reviewers were thinking of. Awadewit (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
              • The point is not necessarily to cite that specific reference, but to properly address the fact that the comparison with Penelope did not originate with critics, but is part of the novel's content itself. A footnote does not adequately address the matter. The text of the article currently suggests that the Penelope comparison originated with critics, which is incorrect. We need to have something along the lines of this: "Clare compares herself to Penelope, waiting for her Odysseus, a kinship reiterated by several reviewers."—DCGeist (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
                • Ah. Since the text was in the passive and had no agent, I didn't think it really suggested that the critics originated the comparison - I thought the reference did. That's why I suggested the additional reference, but we could also change the caption. How about "Clare compares herself to Penelope, waiting for Odysseus, a literary allusion highlighted by several reviewers." Awadewit (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
                  • That's great. I made the change...highlighting another issue. With the brevity of the Genre section and the now slightly longer caption, it strikes me that the Penelope image on the left almost invariably squeezes the following Themes header out of left alignment, whatever the user's browser window configuration and image preferences. (This had struck me even before the editing of the caption.) I've restaggered the images to address this. (I do, in general, prefer the right-left-right arrangement you had, but the slight loss in attractiveness of the left-right-left is better than displacing the section header.) See what you think.—DCGeist (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
                    • There is no really great image placement scheme for this article. This if fine. Awadewit (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• In another passage that, again, I lightly ce'd, but retained the original meaning, I again find the original meaning a bit dubious. It is claimed that the Library Journal's description of the novel—"skillfully written with a blend of distinct characters and heartfelt emotions"—is "[r]epresentative of the bulk of reviews". (The original phrasing, before my ce, was "Like the bulk of reviews".) Are we so sure that it is? I would simply eliminate the claim.—DCGeist (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• After having read so many of the reviews, I can say that it is. Such phrases help the reader out and connect together an otherwise disparate paragraph. It is difficult to write these paragraphs, since there are no "meta-reviews". :) Awadewit (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful reading. I've interspersed my responses. Awadewit (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Not comfortable with citing only one reviewer to support a claim such as this: "Several reviewers compared Henry to Billy Pilgrim of Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five (1969)." "Several" is an indefinite number greater than two—I'd say two references at a minimum are necessary to support the claim. Three, of course, would remove all doubt. The lack of sourcing is more tolerable but still not ideal for a general claim such as this: "Several reviewers noted that time travel represents relationships in which couples cannot quite communicate with each other." Only one apparent example—Natasha Walter—is provided. No one else need be quoted, but the sentence should be followed with a citation referencing one or more additional reviewers. (This issue applies to the Penelope discussion, as well.)—DCGeist (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This is tending towards overcitation, I think. Note that none of these claims is even remotely controversial, yet they still have citations (above and beyond what is required by WP:V). I don't think we need to start adding multiple citations (this isn't intelligent design!). Awadewit (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree, especially about the very specific claim that "several reviewers compared Henry to Billy Pilgrim of Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five (1969)." There is evidence that just one reviewer made this very specific comparison, while the language of the article claims three or more. The claim is thus subject to serious challenge. Either the language needs to be changed or the citation expanded.—DCGeist (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

How do others feel about this? I have rarely seen this kind of citation requirement asked for, except at extremely controversial articles, where each and every claim is disputed. Considering, again, that such comparisons are obvious to readers of both books (the reviewers did not have to be particularly astute), I'm not sure we need three citations just to demonstrate the "several" point. Awadewit (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with DCGeist that we could err on the side of caution here. But it depends on what specifically the source says (since it's behind a paywall I can't tell). Does the source specifically say that others have made this comparison, or is it just one example of a person making the comparison?

Even if it's the latter, we could circumvent this discussion by changing the sentence to say "Henry has been compared to Billy Pilgrim of Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five (1969)". It might also be a bit weasely, but then there's no concern about verifiability/factuality/truthiness. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm even close to a hardliner in terms of disputing "each and every claim". However, I do believe that if we claim that "several" people have made a specific observation, we are obligated to evidence (at least) that more than one person has made that observation. (The presumed obviousness or lack thereof of the observation is completely irrelevant.) Why? Because, if we can only evidence that one (WP:V worthy!) person has made the observation, there is no problem whatsoever in saying just that. And if we can indeed evidence that more than person has made the observation, it is both absolutely practical and quite desirable to do so. If additional sources for the comparison cannot—or will not—be adduced, rʨanaɢ has offered an elegant solution, which I endorse. I am ready to support the article's promotion if it is applied, or—of course—if additional sourcing is provided to support the claim of "several."—DCGeist (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the sentence to Rjanag's suggested rewording. Awadewit (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support (caveat: I was one of the editors who did the PR for this article last month). Well-researched and well-written article, very informative. The only thing that still bugs me is that we never found out which publisher outbid MacAdam/Cage, but it seems that none of the sources say that so our hands are tied, and it's a pretty minor thing anyway. (caveat II: my girlfriend loves this book, and I haven't read it yet, so I paid extra-close attention when reading the article.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! I heard a rumor that the film is changing the ending. More than likely it will be happy. Hollywood. Awadewit (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Lean Support after a cursory read through, I did not notice any problems. I intended to read it when I have some more time and see if anything needs to be fixed. In essence, there was nothing major that drew my attention and anything that would be a problem would most likely be insignificant or minor. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I've asked DCGeist to revisit. Awadewit (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Every concern I raised has been addressed. This is a fine article, giving a well-rounded, balanced look at an enormously popular novel.—DCGeist (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:40, 11 July 2009 [4].

---

Tropical Storm Hermine (1998)

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't quite think of a clever nomination statement, but I'll just say this: if you didn't know that Tropical Storm Hermine was the eighth tropical cyclone of the 1998 Atlantic hurricane season, you need to read this article! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper. (I noticed USA Today, but there may be others)
• Please spell out abbreviations in the references. I noted NOAA and USGS

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Should be fixed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Clearly, my life was a dull and dreary place before I learned that Hermine was the eighth tropic cyclone of the hurricane season (Hermine? what kind of name is that?)
  • Images: check out, all free and such. (yawn)
  • Sources: Shoot me an email, I have a handful of stuff I found of LexisNexis that may or may not be useful for some minor additions (conflicting sources on highest winds, some comments about market impact, some more impact tidbits.)
  • More when I feel like it. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support looks up to stuff for me. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support the additions have done a lot for the article. I believe it meets comprehensiveness, image, ref, and style criterion (I will run through and do my best to correct any flaws I can see in regards to prose). --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I've copyedited the length of the article, mostly cleaning up commas and excising some redundancy. I also left some inline comments about certain areas where it was unclear to me, a storm neophyte (diff). One question: not really due to WP:BLP concerns, since the man is dead, but out of privacy should we excise the name of the shrimper who was killed? It's not like he's notable for anything else or his name is essential to the article. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Done, and addressed the inline queries. Thanks for the copyedit and support! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments It's pretty good. Could use some fit and finish, particularly in the following areas:
  • I've noticed this in other tropical storm articles, but why the propensity for using phrases like "towards the south" instead of the simpler "southward"? I suggest this make its way into your WikiProject style guide, if you have one.
  • Likewise, phrases like "to the northeast of the center" and "to the east of the center" can lose "to the" without changing the meaning.
  • "Initially, it was believed that Hermine's remnants contributed to the development of Hurricane Karl; however, this was not confirmed." I'm more curious than anything else, but how did you extract this information from the source given? I don't see Karl mentioned in this bulletin. Also, change to "this belief was not confirmed" to avoid the ambiguity.
    • Tropical Depression 11 was the precursor to Karl. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "On Grand Isle, a mandatory evacuation order was declared ..." Which Grand Isle are you referring to? You're linking to a disambig page. If it's the same one as earlier in the para, remove the link.
  • There's some overlinking present. Please don't link place names such as New Orleans multiple times. Also.. "oxygen", "mosquito", maybe others.
  • "said that the storm 'obviously...played a part' in the man's death" MoS problem.. check WP:ELLIPSES.

--Laser brain (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

All done. Thanks for the review! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The inro. conflicts with the final section. The intro says otherwise, the effects from Hermine were minor., But the final section tells me that the effect of Hermine was to compound the problems caused by Frances and other storms and that the combined effect was disastrous to a loss of millions of dollars to farmers. This fact needs to be reflected in the first paragraph in a statement such as "While hermine was not of itself a severe and damaging storm, the effects combined with thos of other storms that season....etc" Amandajm (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Wow, 28 days and the FAC is not closed yet. Well anyway, to me, it meets all criteria. Great Article to read. Darren23 (Contribs) 22:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:40, 11 July 2009 [5].

---

Albert Kesselring

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe that it is an important military history article, about one of the most famous field marshals of World War II. It has passed Good Article and A-class article reviews. An Australian-German-Italian collaborative effort. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is a very interesting and comprehensive article which meets the FA criteria. Great work. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 153 (Royal Warrante of ...) needs a publisher
  • Done.
• What makes Bitner, Teddy Kesselring at Anzio a reliable source? Lulu Press is a self-publishing company.
  • It is not used as a source... Bitner added it to the bibliography himself a couple of days ago. I have removed it.
• Plochner ref needs a publisher listed.
  • Done.
• A note for other reviewers, note that Kesselring's memoirs are used as a source (not very extensively, mind you) so that should be watched out for. (From a glance at the number of times referenced, I'm not thinking it's gong to be a problem, but best to point this out now.)
  • They are mainly used for biographical details. There is the occasional reference to personal reactions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I wasnt' particularly worried, but better to point it out for others ... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

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

• Support–I performed the GAR on this biography and all pertinent issues were addressed. Apart from possibly a handful of serial commas (which I leave for the grammar experts to review), it remains in fine condition. Thus I support this page for FA promotion.—RJH (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Image concern needs clarification:

• File:KesselringDetentionReport.jpg: are we certain the detention reports are handled by the US forces? If the Museums' Reports are on courtesy loan from the UK archives, it would then fall under Crown Copyright, which expires in 1996, just nicely complying with the URAA. Of course, the reports could be jointly done by US and British forces. The document is in public domain, US or not, but we must make sure the license is correct.
  • Kesselring was a prisoner of and processed by the Americans. There was no joint processing of prisoners. He was later formally handed over to the British. The form is an American one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

All other images are verifiably in the public domain or free for use. Jappalang (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you crop the images used the article to rid of the German archive side panel? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• No. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Kesselring was one of the most frequently listed German soldiers in the Wehrmachtbericht, an honour that was not bestowed frequently. I have the Wehrmachtbericht in front of me and he is listed 13 times surpassing even Werner Mölders. I think this needs to be added somewhere to the article. Secondly, I would like to see the footnotes separated from the citations. I gladly address both the topic if you find this valuable to the article. Kesselring also received numerous other awards like the "Order of the Crown of Italy", why doesn't the article mention any of those? Personally I would expect that a GA article lists all of them. my 2 cents MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Another comment, all German nouns must be capitalized. There is one instance of Generalmajor in lower case.MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. This looks to be generally OK, but I have a few comments:

• The prose is rather staccato in places, with quite a few sentences beginning "He did ... He was ... He qualified ... He helped ..." very close together. Doesn't really make the prose flow as well as it could.

• "From Early life: "The regiment was based at Metz, and was responsible for maintaining its forts." Err, yes, so what?
  • FWIW, I don't see the prob with this - not fascinating info but at least we know something they did... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• From Between the wars: "As chief of administration, he had to create his new staff from scratch". He created his staff?
  • Yes he did... so? Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Heh, I'm guessing the point is that some could read this as creating the staff members, Frankenstein-like. No prob for the initiated but might look odd to others... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh, okay. I changed it to "assemble". Thanks for that one Igor Ian Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• From Between the wars: "Like many ex-Army officers, he tended to see air power in the tactical role". The tactical role?
  • Yes... so? Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• From World War II: ".. considered himself under Bock's orders" doesn't sound right. Perhaps something like "deferred to Bock in all matters relating to the ground war"?
  • No, that doesn't mean the same thing at all! Obviously, the air component commander will have to defer to the ground component commander in ground matters. What it is saying here is that when the ground component commander wanted something done, the air component commander (Kesselring) did what he was told. Not told him that he was not under his command. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Several instances of the awkward use of "would", such as in "Air and ground operations, however, were to commence simultaneously, so there would be no time to suppress the defending Royal Netherlands Air Force". "Suppress" also seems a little unidiomatic here, might something like "overcome" be better?
  • "Suppress is a technical term. It means to reducing the ability to attack or defend itself. It falls short of neutralisation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Although earmarked for operations against the Soviet Union, Luftflotte 2 remained in the west until May 1941." "Arriving in the West, Kesselring found Luftflotte 2 operating in support of von Bock's Army Group B." So which is it to be? "West" or "west"?
  • Changed to lower case Hawkeye7 (talk)

These are of course just a few examples of the kind of tidying up I think still remains to be done to this article.

--Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• The link to "Officer cadet": it goes through the anglophone countries in detail, but not a mention of Germany, let alone Nazi Germany. Is it misleading? And it's linked again to the same place 20 seconds later (and I'd rather have the German word first time—is it done to link to the German WP article on fahnenjunker instead?) Is a piped section-link possible instead to the article on "Germany Army" or "History of the G A"? In any case, why the A for "army", especially when in isolation ("remained in the Army")?
  • A good rule of thumb is the capital letter is required when "the" is used. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • A better idea would be to upgrade the officer cadet article to include details about Germany; or write a new article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• A wasteful link to "World War I": this is surely linked from the "Western" and "Eastern" fronts articles: WWI is just too vague to be useful, especially when specific related links are within half a second's read. I see "Western front" linked again in the lead. The text is on the high side of link-density, so opportunities for focussing the readers on the high-value links should be taken, if there are any. In fact, rationalising would pay for a slight expansion of blue for "Poland" (and by implication the succeeding link to "France"): pipe "invasion of Poland", and the reader will be more likely to click. (You've done this already for North Africa—good.) Linking is almost as skill-bound as writing prose!
• I'm trying to think how to make this sentence less clunky: "Albert Kesselring was born in Marktsteft, Bavaria, on 30 November 1885,[Notes 2] the son of Carl Adolf Kesselring, a schoolmaster and town councillor, and his wife Rosina,[3] who was born a Kesselring, being Carl's second cousin.[1] "
  • It could be split in two... I use this form for every biography. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Why is "honeymooned" linked? "Apocathery" I can just cope with as a link.
  • Apocathery was linked because I had to look it up! Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• "Italy"—I'd remove that link. There are so many high-value ones already, and the article on Italy is rather vague in relation to this topic.
• "He was also involved in secret military manoeuvres"—Better without "also"?
• Unhappy about linking "Colonel", an article that deals with the term in so many countries, but not Germany (although oddly there's an icon in the gallery there). Does it, did it, mean the same thing as in an anglophone army? Again, is it acceptable to link to the German WP, or to remove the link from the main text and insert in "See also"?
  • Yes. Oberst means "Colonel" in both the sense of the rank and the position (ie "honorary colonel" in the British Army). So the translation is a very good one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • You can't link to a foreign-language WP. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I am going to apply WP:Bold here and change all instances of lieutenant colonel and above to the german corresponding rank. I previously changed all field marshal ranks in German field marshals articles to generalfeldmarschall Gsmgm (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Good! I'm quite happy with that. There was a bit of debate earlier as to whether using German would make the article harder for the general reade to follow. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Was 6000 RM a lot of money?
  • Yes. The linked article on Rieichmarks says (without source) that there were 4.2 RM to the US dollar = USD $1,400. This online calculator says that was worth between USD $18,000 and $22,000 today. However, many other generals got much, much more: Milch, von Rundstedt and von Kluge each got RM 250,000; von Kleist received RM 480,000; and Keitel asked for and received a tract of confiscated land worth RM 730,000. Added a note to this effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the rest, but this suggests that a link audit and prose polish are desirable. It's still much better than the German WP equivalent: just out of interest, was it useful in the preparation of this nomination? Tony (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. Originally the article contained a section translated from the German wiki which was based on a review of von Lingen's book. From there I found the German edition of her book. I contacted von Lingen and she told me that an English translation was in the works, so I waited until it was available, then replaced the footnotes with ones referring to the English edition. In the editing process, the original section was subsumed into the text.Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Gave it the tick at MILHIST ACR, believe it deserves the bronze star as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support: I believe that this article is well written, well cited and illustrated and meets the FA criteria. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - On the whole, this is a very well-written article. I just saw a one minor thing as I was scanning through the article and realized it was currently at FAC.
  • "Kesselring's evacuation of Sicily, which began a week earlier on 10 August, was perhaps the most brilliant action of the campaign. In spite of the Allies' superiority on land, at sea, and in the air, Kesselring was able to evacuate not only 40,000 men, but also 96,605 vehicles, 94 guns, 47 tanks, 1,100 tons of ammunition, 970 tons of fuel, and 15,000 tons of stores. He was successful because he was able to achieve near-perfect coordination between the three services under his command while his opponent, Eisenhower, could not." – The phrase "he was successful because" seems a bit unnecessary; is there any way that you could eliminate that?
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I can't support this yet. The intro is not clear enough. It is perfectly clear to anyone who understands the history of the Wars, but it is not, to someone that doesn't.

It states that he was in WWII, in the first paragraph. Then talks about enlisting and WWI in the second parag. Then it talks about his role in 1936, but says he resigned.

Then suddenly he is invading Poland etc. There needs to be a clear statement that this invasion took place in WWII, and it needs a date. It needs to be clear that the events of this paragraph are events in the war that is discussed in paragraph one. This may seem obvious to you, but it isn't obvious to high school kids.

Amandajm (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• How about now? It says: "During World War II he commanded air forces in the invasions of Poland and France..." This should make it clear enough. Some dates have also been added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ha! Ha! I do like those changes, Hawkeye7! I made them myself. Thanks for tidying-up. Amandajm (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Well done! A fine example of WP:Bold! Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Amandajm (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Has Malleus been asked to revisit and see if his concerns have been addressed? Karanacs (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I shall ask. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)\

• See below. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The images should all have alt text, as per WP:ALT and WP:FACR #3. I added alt text to the lead image, as an example. The remaining images still lack alt text. Eubulides (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed; thanks. Eubulides (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I think this has improved sufficiently for me to withdraw my oppose, but I still see problems with the prose, although not serious enough to persuade me to maintain my opposition. For instance:

• "He attempted to cut the Polish communications through air attacks against Warsaw ...". So the Polish were communicating through air attacks against Warsaw?
  • This interpretation had never occurred to me. Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Like other generals of Nazi Germany, he received personal payments from Adolf Hitler; in Kesselring's case, RM 6,000, a considerable sub at the time." Should that really be sub?
  • Corrected to "sum". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• "The bad weather that hampered ground operations from October on hampered air operations even more." Awkward repetion of "hampered".
  • Changed second one to "impeded". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• "... taking personal command of the mobile units which he led around the southern flank ...". Should be "that he led around".
  • No, I wanted to say that he took all the mobile units, not just ones that he led around the southern flank. Re-phased. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

--Malleus Fatuorum 13:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

Bedřich Smetana

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• 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)

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

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)

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

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)

• 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)
  • Works for me - thanks for explaining that, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [7].

---

Matthew Boulton

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)
• Support after passage of the vacuum cleaner(s). Physchim62 (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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

• Comments -
• You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• 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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

• • 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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 [8].

---

Maiden Castle, Dorset

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

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)

• Support I think that this meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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. – iridescent 15:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Other problems include:

• The section headed Early History is confusingly titled, since the article is about the castle, built around 600 BC, not the site. It might be better renamed Early history of the site, to avoid readers assuming the castle was begun in 4,000 BC.

• The section title has been changed to before the fort. Nev1 (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Xandar 11:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• In the section "Developed hill fort", the following sentence appears:

In the Middle Iron Age, Maiden Castle underwent an expansion that ensured it was the largest hill fort in Britain and one of the largest in Europe, although according to archaeologist Niall Sharples it is, by some definitions, the largest in western Europe.

The word "although" implies opposition here between the two statements. It might be better replaced with "and" or make two separate sentences.

Agreed, it has been changed to "and". Nev1 (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. dealt with. Xandar 11:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The words "widely spaced" and "equally spaced" jar as used in this section, since they are capable of at least two meanings. Are we talking about the area of the forts, or their separation? It might be better to put "were built equal distances apart"

I disagree, it's talking about spacing rather than space; widely spaced is different to the hill forts being large and I don't think there's any ambiguity that "widely spaced" and "equally spaced" refers to the separation of the forts rather than the size. Nev1 (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Although this would not be a reason for failing FA, I have to say that I found this ambiguous, and was brought up short reading the passage. To say that "Dorset's three developed hill forts (Badbury Rings, Flowers Barrow, and Weatherby Castle) were widely spaced," is at best ugly, at worst confusing. Better phrasing should be found. Xandar 11:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added "apart" a couple of times to make things clearer and the sentence now reads "The developed hill forts in Dorset were Badbury Rings, Flowers Barrow, Maiden Castle, and Weatherby Castle and were widely spaced apart". Nev1 (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I still think it's a clumsy wording, but.... Xandar 20:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• The section headed Roman activity and abandonment begins:

In AD 43, the Roman conquest of Britain began. Based on the "war cemetery", Mortimer Wheeler created a vivid story of the fall of Maiden Castle to Roman forces.

Since this is a new section in a long article, this sentence should briefly state what the "war cemetery" is. Mortimer Wheeler should also be identified. I presume he is a historian or archaeologist.

• I don't think so, the war cemetery is explained just a few lines above and explaining again what it is would lead to unnecessary repetition. Wheeler is already mentioned twice earlier, once in the lead where it's explained that he's an archaeologist who excavated the site, and again in the decline section where it's mentioned that he undertook excavations at Maiden Castle so I don't think explaining again is necessary. Nev1 (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia policy allows repetitions in long articles. where they aid user understanding. Much as you might dislike it, many readers are not going to read through the entire article. They will go straight to the section they want. (That's why there is a wikilinked menu in longer articles.) As such, in a new section you need to briefly explain important terms like these. The explanation of "war cemetery" is hidden at the end of the previous section. The identification of Wheeler is elsewhere. Why not simply reword to something like: "Based on his discovery of multiple burials of victims of violent assault dating from this period, archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler created a vivid story of the fall of Maiden Castle to Roman forces." Xandar 11:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it now reads "Based on the discovery of a group of bodies in the Late Iron Age formal cemetery that had met a violet death, archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler created a vivid story of the fall of Maiden Castle to Roman forces". Nev1 (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Measurements. the size of the fort is always described with reference to hectares and acres. A lot of people have difficulty visualising these measures. Could the linear measurements of the fort (feet/metres) not also be included somewhere?

• This is a slight problem, even if I thought that people didn't understand the areas used the sources are concerned about areas, not distances along the main axes. Which is a shame as it would give the reader some other measurements for an idea of the size of the place. Nev1 (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a major problem. More a suggested improvement. Xandar 11:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of hectares and acres, the article now uses square metres and square feet which should be more widely understood. Nev1 (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Name. The origin of the name "Maiden Castle" does not seem to be mentioned. This would seem to be of interest, given the unusual name.

Xandar 22:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• The name is already explained in the later history section and it's not really that unusual as there are at least three other places in England with the same name. Nev1 (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Again. This is quite important information, and should be more prominent. Naming is considered quite important in Wikipedia and some mention of the origin of the name should either be in the lead or, as many articles do, have a separate short section just after the lead. Xandar 11:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the name isn't actually that important: it's either a modern construction or a name developed in the post-Roman period, neither of which bear much relevance to the site's most important phase (ie: the Iron Age). The name wouldn't have affected the site, so it's not that important. The name is only important as an afterthought IMO, as reflected in the works produced on the site where it's not even mentioned (the name mentioned by Ptolemy is given more prominence). Where the information is in the body of the article is where it is most relevant, but I have added something to the lead as the reader will probably wonder why the site is called "Maiden". Nev1 (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I think my main concerns have been satisfied. I can now support. Xandar 20:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments As you know I looked at this before submission to FAC. A number of things I would otherwise have pointed out have been resolved. I'm still going to be picky however and point out a few issues I have. From the lead:

'[...] and was similar to many other hill forts'. Many other hill forts where? Britain? Dorset? Personally I found it a bit ambiguous, but maybe it's just me.

Fair enough, I've added "in Britain". Nev1 (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

'[...] making it the largest hill fort in Britain'. I'm sure it is still the largest Iron-age hill fort in Britain, I think a mention of this should be included somewhere; even perhaps at the very end of the lead.

I've added another sentence to the lead to make it clearer that it's still the largest: "...making it the largest hill fort in Britain. As well as being the largest in Britain, it is by some definitions also the largest in Europe". Nev1 (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

'Later history' concerns me. I've seen it used before a number of times in this way, but it always bothers me. My interpretation of 'later' is 'at or toward an end or late period or stage of development', but this section also arrives at the present towards the very end. I'm not quite sure what to suggest though in its place.

Hmm, I'm really sure what else the section could be called. It's not exclusively about the archaeological investigations, and there's not enough information about the post-Roman and pre-modern activity to split the section. The investigations and the later use are still part of the history of the site. One alternative is "after the hill fort", but that doesn't feel quite right as it's still there and that's what the excavations in the 20th century were looking at. Nev1 (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

'In 1921, composer John Ireland (1879–1962) wrote Mai-Dun, a symphonic rhapsody'. I consider this to need a bit more detail. As you previously describe, the name 'Mai-Dun' is ' is not unique to the site and occurs in several other places in Britain', so is John Ireland actually writing specifcally about Maiden Castle? If its general then it's of no real value, but if it is then it just needs the briefest of mentions about it being specific (it's quite a short statement anyway).

A good point. It was the Maiden Castle in Dorset Ireland was writing about so I've clarified that in the article. Nev1 (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That's all I've got so far. With or without making the above suggestions it's a fantastically well-written article and a pleasure to read. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Almost Support interesting subject, well worth reading, just a few minor concerns,
  • I'm a little surprised as to what is and is not in the lead. Grid references and the village are minor details, but the Durotriges are not mentioned until quite late in the article.
    • The academics seem to be a little shy about the Durotriges and only refer to them in the immediate period before the Roman invasion. I think it derives from uncertainty about who they are. Without Ptolemy referring to them, we probably wouldn't know they exist. As a result, it's virtually impossible to say when Maiden Castle was in the territory of the Durotriges apart from immediately before the Romans arrived and it's been suggested that tribal identities only emerged in the Late Iron Age. Nev1 (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Nicely handled, I think we simply don't know what the tribal structure of Southern England was apart from a little bit of information as to what it was at the time of the Roman conquest. Perhaps safest to refer to the era as Celtic as one thing that everyone seems to agree on is that the hill fort era is Celtic. However I still think the first paragraph emphasises some trivial stuff as opposed to this being "the largest Hill fort in Britain at the time of the Roman invasions." Grid references and parishes are worthy detail but I don't think they belong in the lead.
        • Even something as generalised as saying something is "Celtic" is problematic as academics have recently begun questioning whether this is a modern imposition on ancient societies and whether there was actually a "Celtic" culture. It's a complicated issue, so you won't see me editing many "Celtic" articles! As for the unimportant details, I've moved the information about the civil parish and the grid reference to the end of the later history section. I think mentioning Dorchester in the lead is fair as people need some point of reference to locate the place; as for the other stuff, civil parish isn't hugely important and the location is still in the infobox. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • 43AD was the date of the Roman invasion, but would you mind checking when Vespasian reached this far west, as I thought it was in his campaign of 44-48.
    • I thought the legions had to wait a season after Claudius left in 43, but according to Mattingly (based on Seutonius' life of Vespasian) the campagins in the southwest took place in 43–47. This has been added to the article. Nev1 (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • the references to "one of over 100 hill forts of similar size built in Dorset and Wessex" is misleading in that Wessex only existed in an era after the hill forts had fallen into disuse, when it did it was a kingdom of fluctuating area but Dorset was a core part of it.
    • Hmm, good point. How's this: "it was one of over 100 hill forts of similar size built in Wessex (of which Dorset was later a part) around the same time"? Nev1 (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • What does the source say about the area that the 100 were in? I think Wessex is misleading due to the chronology and imprecise as an area, so I'd prefer something along the lines of "it was one of over 100 similarly sized hill forts built around the same time in the area that now forms the modern counties of Dorset, Hants, ......" ϢereSpielChequers 16:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • The source says "In the first two or three hundred years of its existence the hillfort of Maiden Castle was closely similar to other hillforts in Dorset. Likewise the situation in Dorset can be paralleled throughout Wessex with probably over a hundred hillforts of comparable form and size constructed at this time". Wessex is defined in the glossary as "An area of central southern England which can be defined in a number of ways... For the purpose of this book it loosely refers to the area covered by the counties of Dorset, Wiltshire, Berkshire, and Hampshire but can also include parts of Oxfordshire and West Sussex". I've replaced Weesex in the article with these counties. Nev1 (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If available; prominence, current ecotype and underlying geology are all details worth including in the article - see Hod Hill for a hill fort that covers those issues.
    • It's mentioned that the underlying rock is chalk, but I've not come across the prominence as opposed to height above sea level or the current ecotype. Hod Hill doesn't seem to have the relevant sources, any ideas where to find this information? Nev1 (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I would have thought the sources would give some mention as to the prominence - you can calculate it from the contour map so I'd be surprised if one of the writers covering the topic hadn't mentioned the height above the village - it has repercussions both in the views and the defensibility of the site. ϢereSpielChequers 16:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
        • The English Heritage Book of Maiden Castle doesn't have anything on the prominence or any contour maps to work it out from. I'll take a look at Maiden Castle: Excavations and Field Survey 1985–86 and see if there's anything there... but that will have to wait until tomorrow. Nev1 (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Also I've made a few tweaks, hope you don't mind them. ϢereSpielChequers 14:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • • Found it. Nev1 (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Thanks for indulging me, I was sure there would be some coverage of that aspect. ϢereSpielChequers 20:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Well written and comprehensive article. Ruslik_Zero 08:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose (for the time being) Badly organised and not well enough written. The problems with the article begin with its muddly, badly-constructed introduction. All the info is there, but none of it is well organised. I have made suggestions that could remedy this, on the discussion page. Every new section needs to start with a clear statement so that the reader knows exactly what the section is about eg. If the section is about the Neolithic period, then do not begin the whole section with the phrase "Excavations show....." The section needs to begin "In the Neolithic period....." This is about clarity of language, and writing it is quite easy, if you adopt that sort of formula. Amandajm (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have replied to your comments on the talk page (although it would have helped to keep the discussion centralised here), and while you raise some valid points I can't say I agree with all of them. For example, as I've explained on the talk page, I think your suggestion of adding a title "History of site" is completely superfluous. As for you taking issue with the start of each section, the opening paragraph puts the section in context, with dates. Nev1 (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Now that the first paragraph has been improved, and the other introductory paragraphs slightly better orgainsed, I am happy to support this article as FA. Amandajm (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• When changing an oppose to support, pls strike the old oppose !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Image review: all images are appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comments just beginning a read-through now and might make some straightforward changes to improve prose, but please revert if you feel I have inadvertently changed meaning. I will note any queries below - Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a deal-breaker, but I do feel prose flows better when one decribes who obscure people are - e.g. Augustus Pitt Rivers (an adjective or two on who he is (a bit like the persons immediately following).

In around 100 BC the hill fort shrank, and settlement became focused at the eastern end of the site. - the hill fort actually shrank? Or better to just reduce this to "In around 100 BC, the settlement within the hill fort shrank to the eastern end of the site." (??)

it would have been visible from miles away - "several" miles away? or "many" miles away? "miles away" on its own sounds weird.

To sum up, the prose was repetitive in places, but I was able to trim a fair few redundancies readily as I liked the subject matter and the topic was a pleasure to read. The above quibbles are pretty straightforward and not enough to oppose at this juncture. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy edit. I have added an explanation of who Sharples and Wheeler are on a few occasions, although I am wary of making it repetitious. I've changed the sentence about "shrinking" to "In around 100 BC habitation at the hill fort shrank went into decline and became focused at the eastern end of the site", which I think is clearer. As for "miles away", I've added "several" although the source is vague. Most importantly, I'm glad you liked the subject :-) Nev1 (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

Ostend Manifesto

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

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)

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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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

• 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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

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 [10].

---

Australian Magpie

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• Comment fascinating bird. A couple of comments while giving a first reading. Shyamal (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "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)

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)

• • "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)

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)

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)

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)

• "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)

• "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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

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

• 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)
• 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)
      • 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)
  • I love the psychedelic map - takes me back to the sixties....

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

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• 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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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

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)

• 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)

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

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

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)

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)

(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)

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 [11].

---

Halo Wars

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

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., [12]). 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 [13] 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• Comment - Is there any need to give IGN three times the exposure on the reviews table? - hahnchen 11:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. - hahnchen 20:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

...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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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

• 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)

• • • 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)

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

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)
  • Adding citations now. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • ...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)
  • 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
      • 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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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

• Comment - Is there any need to have both GameRankings and Metacritic scores? - hahnchen 12:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)

• 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)
  • Quotes have been sourced immediately afterward. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
  • TKD has gone through the article; he was the first to do so. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • Yes indeed. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:16, 7 July 2009 [14].

---

Luton Town F.C.

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

• • 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)

• • 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)

• • 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)

• • 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)

• • http://www.thefootballnetwork.net/main/s120/st44186.htm

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

• • 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

England Football Online is generally solid, but if the ref to it is an issue, RSSSF provides an alternative [15]. Football Fans Census reports usually make it into the media (e.g. [16], [17], and as one of three cites for a single sentence I see no problem. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• "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)

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

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

• 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)

• 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)

• "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)

• "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)

• "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)

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

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

• 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)

• 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)

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

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)

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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

• • 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

• • "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)

• • 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)

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

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

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

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

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

*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) All sorted. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 18:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Club identity section is still squashing text between images, against WP:MOS recommendations. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Better? – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 18:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC) 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) I've moved it a bit further down. On QPR, I can't find anything on the reasons behind it. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 18:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC) 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) Sorted the pictures and the QPR thing. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 18:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC) 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) OK, all done. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Except for ref 73... needs a date. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Done. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 09:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC) 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) They are all now linked. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 12:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)
• 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)

• 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)

"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)

• 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.[18][19][20] 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Fixed?

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

• 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)

• Fixed?

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

• 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)
  • 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)

• 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)

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

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

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)

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

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

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:16, 7 July 2009 [21].

---

SECR N class

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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. – iridescent 22:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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