This article passed GA last year, was peer-reviewed in June and was granted MILHIST A-class status in July. After extensive recent tweaking I think it meets the criteria for a featured article. However as this is my first FA nomination I apologise in advance for any newbie errors. Any comments, suggestions or criticisms are welcome. Euryalus (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the official website of the De Delft shipyard where the replica docked, though I should have noted that it was in Dutch, sorry about that. However, I've removed the link altogether because a) it doesn't provide a unique resource per point 1 in WP:ELNO; b) sufficient replica images are already in the article; c) most of the De Delft photos aren't that good; and d) a pet peeve - the photos show the replica with blue-painted upper works. The real Endeavour′s upper works were painted mud-brown. So the De Delft images aren't an accurate representation of the real ship, which limits the utility of a link to them. Euryalus (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks.The alt text needs a bit of work. The alt text for the maps should give a bit more gist of what the maps tell the sighted reader, e.g., it should say which direction through the Torres straight, and what bodies of water were traversed other than the Torres straight and in what order. The alt text "The Royal Naval Ensign in use at the time of Cook's first voyage of discovery" cannot be immediately verified by a non-expert who looks only at the image; better would be "Red flag with Union Jack covering the upper left quadrant". The word "circa" should be removed, as the image doesn't say "circa". The hyphen between the years should be an endash, as per WP:ENDASH. The phrases "Painting showing", "sketch", and "a sketch of" are unnecessary noise and should be removed (see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, example 2). And please use proper English punctuation (one alt text ends in two periods, some non-sentences are punctuated with periods). Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, or at least improved. I used "Map:" to introduce the two map alt texts per the 5th example at WP:ALT (which uses "Diagram:"), but let me know if this should also be removed. It was a challenge with the map alt texts to balance information inclusion against verbosity - let me know if I got that balance wrong and I'll have another go. Lastly, sorry for the grammar errors - don't know how I missed those. Euryalus (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the new alt quite good and is well-balanced between brevity and verbosity. Eubulides (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an outstanding article and easily meets the FA criteria Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an excellent article, informative and clear but also it importantly is an exciting article. Some of the insights from Cook's crew on certain events makes it a special account. I come from a family where the men had a long history of being sailors before 1900 and the article makes me want to sail the high seas like they did. Awesome. The only complaint is "The prospects if the ship sank were grim. ". I think that is stating the obvious and could be reworded...Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 14:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, though its an exciting topic so the really hard thing would be to make this article boring. I agree the "prospects are grim" bit is a statement of the obvious, though I think it leads well into the following sentence. Still, I've spent an hour or so trying to reword it without success. What do you think - should I a) simply remove it altogether, or b) expand it to mention that Banks considered but rejected abandoning ship as it was too far and if he survived he'd be marooned, and that Cook thought of running the sinking ship onto the nearest island, then building something from her wreck that could maybe sail to Batavia. But neither option was very seriously considered, and then the fothering saved the day. Any suggestions?
On consideration I'd probably prefer to keep the "grim prospects" sentence as is, as I think it leads well into the rest of the paragraph, and is not entirely a statment of the obvious (shipwreck survival prospects sometimes being pretty good). Obviously, any other views welcome. Euryalus (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A fine nomination with an impressive standard of writing. (I haven't examined for the other criteria, though.)
" to Australia and New Zealand in 1769-71."—I'd be inclined to follow WP:LINK and not link anglophone country-names, or if you really want to, to section-link to their history sections (those whole articles are too large and diffuse to be beneficial as links in this context). ("Australia" is linked again further down, too, just before the more appropriate linking of Botany Bay, NSW".) And there are so many valuable links in that vicinity and the rest of the article that are better less diluted. WP:MOSDASHsays to use an en dash for ranges; but not to use range punctuation where there's an introductory preposition. Thus, "from 1769 to 1791" ... is that the correct meaning?
Can scuttling be anything but deliberate? Perhaps it can ...?
Comma required unless you mean the sheathing and caulking was to protect against a third deck, etc.
Suddenly, metrics come first, which is much more comfortable to me; but whichever way, they need to be consistent.
Apostrophe for officers' mess.
A joy to review. A few of the sentences rival Patrick White's descriptive narrative in A fringe of leaves! Tony(talk) 15:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS WP:MOSDASH and the preceding hyphen section would be a good read. No hyphens after adverbial "ly"; I've fixed "full size"; and there are lots of ranges (day and page) in the Notes section that have hyphens rather than en dashes. Someone here (can't remember who) may very usefully run a bot to fix this aspect of Notes sections ... PING PING? Tony(talk) 15:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"From" and "to" vs "-"' - Done the one in the first sentence. I confess I find the MOSDASH isntructions a little confusing, so a particular thanks to Dabomb87 for fixing the other ones. If any have been missed please let me know.
Scuttling - An accidental scuttling is possible I suppose, but would be an embarassment of epic proportions for a Royal Navy vessel. Blackbeard once deliberately scuttled his flagship then pretended it was an accident so he could abandon his crew and flee with the loot, but that's as close to an accidental scuttling I can think of. Anyway, done - redundant word removed.
Comma - fixed, thanks.
Metrics - Do you mean in the journey length for the replica? If so, done. If not, let me know and I'll have another look through.
Officer′s mess - done, thanks for pointing this out. Euryalus (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well written and well sourced article. It, in my opinion, satisfies all FA criteria. I have only two comments:
In the lead: her crew sworn to secrecy about the southern continent they had discovered. But had they actually discovered any southern continent? It is indeed a strange sentence. The main text only says that To keep Endeavour’s voyages and discoveries secret, Cook confiscated the log books and journals of all on board and ordered them to remain silent about where they had been. I think the sentence from the lead should be removed or rewritten.
I am very interested what disease killed a third of the crew? Is anything known?
Good point - I changed it to "lands." Hope this addresses the issue, but if I've missed the point please let me know.
The earliest deaths sound like dysentery and the later ones malaria, though the first to die was the ship's surgeon and after that no one kept any lasting medical records. Banks described it as an inflammation of the lungs accompanied by a violent fever and physical collapse. Cook got it too, but made a fairly quick recovery. By coincidence Cook's 1st lieutenant Zachary Hicks died of TB, which he'd had since leaving England but finally succumbed to after leaving Batavia. One source (Hough) says disease killed 50,000 people a year in Batavia, and Cook's log says "the unwholsome air of Batavia is the death of more Europeans that any other place upon the Globe." Euryalus (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You did not change anything. I still see "southern continent". Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, I was sure I did that yesterday. Done now, let me know if you'd like something other than how it reads now. Euryalus (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add a note with information about diseases? Ruslik_Zero 16:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, should have done that when you asked last time. Don't have the references on hand, so it'll be a little while. Euryalus (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added disease types mention and reference. Both Hough and Blainey suggest the deaths around this time were dysentery other than 1st Lt Hicks (TB) and ship's master Molyneaux (drunkenness), though many of the crew were already weakened by malaria. Cook and Banks just called it "the flux" and their descriptions of symptoms include both diseases. I've gone with the references as they have the benefit of modern medicine in their identification. Malaria was almsot totallly unknown to the Royal Navy at the time, and there were no identified causes or cures for either condition in 1770. I think a longer dissertation on this in the article would be moving a little off-topic, but I'll put one in if you think it would add value. Euryalus (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3 - These issues should be easy to fix.
File:Endeavour, Bayldon, Francis J. B.jpg - This image is hosted on Commons, which means it has to be in the PD in both the US and NZ, therefore we need a tag explaining why this image is in the PD in the US.
File:Endeavour replica in Cooktown harbour.jpg - The uploader does not seem to be the same as the author, so the uploader could not have released the rights to the photo. Could you contact the uploader and/or the author and sort this out?
Looking forward to striking this objection soon. Awadewit (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these. They're fair points, though I'm not an image expert and these two predate my work on this page so it'll take me a few days to work out how to fix them or if they should be replaced. With the second one, would that be addressed by [User:John Hill]] editing the commons page to reaffirm his release of the photo? If not, what should I do to address this? Euryalus (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No we don't. We have his explicit release in a deleted revision here. That suffices. Hesperian 12:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be an administrator to see that page (I can't view it, for example). Releases have to be as available to the public as we can make them. Awadewit (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between the claim and the proof. The claim must be highly visible, and it is. The proof is, unfortunately, in a deleted revision, and therefore accessible only to administrators. This still makes it far more accessible that our OTRS tickets, which are visible to even fewer people. Hesperian 02:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS is definitely not an ideal solution, I agree, but sometimes we have to resort to it. In this case, happily we do not. Awadewit (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion on this point is at odds with consensus, which is that OTRS is just fine, and there is no need for every image to offer publicly accessible proof that the license claimed is legitimate. Hesperian 03:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I confess I agree with Hesperian. However to resolve the issue I have replaced the John Hill image with this one, which is less visually striking but perhaps more historically relevant. The Bayldon image narrowly fails PD-1996, but I've found an acceptable and much older alternative which I'll upload today. Euryalus (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that John Hill is active. Hoever, if you would rather replace the image than contact him, that is fine. Awadewit (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now done that too, thanks for the suggestion. Euryalus (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced Bayldon image with an Atkins from 1794. Hopefully this address the remaining query - feel free to let me know if there's more that needs doing. Euryalus (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All image issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with one comment. You should utilize the |oclc= parameter in the cite cook template in your bibliography section. OCLC is a nice tool to use to locate a book quickly especially for those books that were pre-ISBN. You can look up your titles here. --Brad (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, done. Never knew there was such a thing. Euryalus (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I agree that this is a well-written and comprehensive account, and interesting, too, there are still a few minor points requiring attention. For instance:-
Lead
"...she [the ship] was forced to beach herself." I doubt this is literally true; should it not be "Cook was forced to beach her", or perhaps "the crew was forced to beach her"?
"American Revolution": "American Revolutionary War" or "American War of Independence" would be more precise
forced beaching - Done, or at least improved. Replaced first point with "was beached on the mainland for seven weeks for rudimentary repairs to her hull." The two "for"'s in the sentence trouble me slightly, if they bother anyone else let me know and I'll reword again.
Revolutionary War - Done. Euryalus (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purchase and refit
It would be useful to have present-day equivalent values for the ship's cost. I normally use MeasuringWorth.com; their calculation gives figures of £265,000 and £326,000 respectively for the two cost figures you mention.
Banks should be described and linked on first, not second mention
"Cook and his passengers" - there were passengers? I imagine that you are referring to the scientific team, so perhaps passengers isn't the right word.
Last paragraph: can you say briefly why the ship carried armaments of this nature? Presumably they were in case of trouble in the unknown waters that were their destination; this could be clarified.
Measuringworth - Happy to do this, but how would I assert Measuringworth as a reliable source?
No problem. MeasuringWorth was founded by two professors of Economics, from UIC and Miami University respectively. Its advisory board has a host of academics from US and UK universities. The site has been accepted as reliable on many previous FACs. Brianboulton (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, as footnote a. Euryalus (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Banks wikilink - Done.
Passengers - Done, or at least improved. Passengers in a naval sense, but I agree it wasn't clear. Let me know if it needs another go.
Armaments - will do tonight - there was something in one of the sources about protection from the French while near Europe and indigenous people in the Pacific, so I'll hunt that down and add it. Euryalus (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Was wrong about the French bit, the only source to discuss the perceived need for the guns refers to their use against hostile natives. This makes sense as they were small scale weaponry designed for anti-personnel combat. Have added their intended use to the text. Euryalus (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outward voyage: "The voyage commenced with a landfall among the Madeira Islands." Surely the voyage commenced when they left Plymouth? Suggest reword.
Voyage commencement - will do tonight, as I should probably explain why they went to the Madeiras at all. Euryalus (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - replaced "Voyage commenced" with "The first port of call". Also expanded this section a little. Euryalus (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Northward to Batavia
Fourth paragraph begins "Despite this, the ship remained in very poor condition..." I'm not sure what "this" refers to; the last event recounted was the ship being struck by lightning. I think "Despite this" could be dropped.
The carpenter's quote contains nautical terms which won't be familiar to most readers, e.g. "main keep", midships", "larbord". It might be better to paraphrase what the carpenter said so that we can better understand the nature of the damage.
Final para, second sentence: there seems to be a disjunction between "shipworm" and "they". If "shipworm" refers to a condition (like for example woodworm), then I think "they" should be "it". Otherwise you should say "shipworms"
Despite this - Removed.
Carpenter's quote - I think the quote adds something to the "flavour" of the article, will have a think about how to address this and get back to you.
I agree the carpenter's account adds flavour. Why don't you just add wiktionary links for "midships" and "larbord" (correctly, "larboard")? The main keep, one might reasonably deduce, is the ship's main hold. Brianboulton (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General point: I'm uncertain about the value of the maps. The detail on each is mainly illegible, even when the maps are forced to their full size. On the "Track of Endeavour" map it is very difficult to find and follow Endeavour's track, given the multiplicity of lines.
I think the south pacific one is OK (the big one), but I can see the problem with the Torres Strait map. If I can find a good PD replacement I'll put it in, otherwise would you suggest one or both maps be removed and replaced with a more detailed text description of the voyage? I covered the Torres Strait-Batavia voyage only briefly because I'm trying to keep the focus on the ship as the aticle subject, rather than the voyage which is better covered here. But that's just my opinion, other views welcome. Euryalus (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The larger map is marginally more legible. If no other reviewer sees it as a problem, leave it in. The second is more problematic, and doesn't really add to the value of the article. As the subject of the article is the ship, I think the Torres Strait journey is adequately covered by the text. My recommendation would be lose this map, though I won't oppose on this if you/other reviewers decide otherwise. Brianboulton (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re the small map - there's an alternative one by Cook himself, though as it was a navigation chart rather than for amateur interest its not at all clearer. I've also found a 1790's map showing Cook's opath through the straits, but with so little frame of reference that its really just a line between two other lines. Per Brianboulton's comment above, I'd prefer to keep the current map for the (admittedly limited) value it adds, but if anyone else prefers its removal (or if Brian presses the point even mildly) I'll call that consensus and take it out. Euryalus (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to add my support when these are addressed. Brianboulton (talk)
Support: All my points properly attended to. I leave the decision on maps to you. Great article now. Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: well written, sourced and illustrated. Good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've given this a quick copyedit, but my changes were very minor. This is in excellent shape—well done. Maralia (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Current ref 54 is a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, must have died in the last day or so. Replaced with Beaglehole. Euryalus (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Citations need some cleanup for consistent formatting (I left some sample edits, problems with dates and page numbers). Is one of these supposed to be an author? If so, author comes first in other citations ...
"Interesting Relics". The Advertiser. Frederick Britten Burden & John Langdon Bonython, Adelaide South Australia. 24 October 1918. p. 4. Retrieved 23 July 2009.
Thanks to Dabomb87 who fixed the inconsistent date formatting in the online refs. Re the 1918 Advertiser reference listed above, Burdon and Bonython were the publishers, though an examiantion of the publisher text on the last page of that edition of the paper indicates they did business under the name "J.L. Bonython & Co." I've replaced the individuals with the company name in the reference. There is no stated author of the article. Euryalus (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The citenews template not permitting the spelling out of "page", I have changed all the references to either "p." or "pp." for consistency. I think the issues raised in this comment are now addressed, but if I've missed something please let me know and I'll have a look back through. Euryalus (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref formatting looks good now (can hardly believe I failed to check it in my review; must be going soft). Maralia (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets FA standards. Please don't be put off by the rather dull title, it is the Richard Nixon-Helen Gahagan Douglas race, which was one of the nastiest ever. The article has been passed for GA by our local Nixon expert, Happyme22, and has received a peer review by Brianboulton. I briefly nominated it before but withdrew it after an objection was posed because I didn't have candidate percentages for the primaries. I now have those statistics, thanks to some very helpful people at the California State Archives. Enjoy the article! I'm proud of it.Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Helen Gahagan Douglas1.jpg is licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0 per [3]. There needs to be some sort of demonstration that there has been an effort to find that File:Helen Gahagan Douglas.jpg fits {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Consider contacting UCLA to work things out and also ask if they own the copyright to be able to license it at all, because the image was originally created by LA Daily News.
I've added alt text, sliced note 120, alternated sides on the images (not perfectly because I don't want the images looking offscreen), and swapped two images, plus added a youtube link to the Ninotchka trailer to the Melvyn Douglas article. That leaves the Douglas photo, and given [4] it is not in the public domain. Since the only Douglas photo on commons is clearly unsuitable (showing her 27 years before the Senate race in a costume), I'm going to go with a fair use image. I'm looking through the available ones, it will be swapped shortly. Thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget about Eleanor Roosevelt :) NW(Talk) 01:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's been changed for an image taken from the FDR Library site. They aver that all their images are public domain.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link to the .html page for File:Eleanorbel.gif rather than the .jpg link? Thanks, NW(Talk) 02:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't. They don't have that. See here--Wehwalt (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Updated with library ID number. NW(Talk) 04:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text is present, thanks; but it needs work. It's pretty much a copy of the caption, which is even worse than no alt text at all, since a screen reader will read both the alt text and the caption to a visually impaired reader. Please see WP:ALT #Difference from captions and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, example #4, and then give it another try. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's new for me. Check it now.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but still needs quite a bit of work. To a first approximation, the alt text should not contain any proper names, because proper names do not convey any visual information to a non-expert reader (unless you already know what Nixon looks like, which most readers don't these days). Another rule of thumb: no info should be in both the caption and the alt text. If it's about visual appearance, it should be in alt text (the caption can assume people can see the image); if it's not about visual appearance, it should be in the caption (as the alt text should be only about visual appearance). Again, please see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples. Two more things. First, several images still lack alt text; you can easily find them by visiting the "alt text" part of the toolbox at the top left of this review page. Second, the phrase "Photographic portrait of" is not that helpful can can be (twice) removed.Eubulides (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I've tried again. Can I ask that you suggest some language for those that you find less than satisfactory? This is something new to me, despite a bit of experience on this page. I fear that if you just keep saying "needs work", I may accidentally make things worse. Using the alt function still leaves the template photos of the Great Seal of California and of Nixon as a much older man, but as those are purely decorative and in templates, not in the article, I don't think they need alt text.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks. Of the images with alt text, the only one I see a problem with now is the campaign thimble, where the alt text specifies text that cannot be seen in the image. I suggest changing that to 'Beige thimble with red lettering, the visible part of which says "Safeguard the A..." and "NIXON for U..."'. I modified the templates to put "|link=|" in the purely-decorative images, which should fix that problem; please see the diffs ([5][6]) in case you run into similar problems in the future. Eubulides (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I peer-reviewed this last month, in the happy pre-alt days (O tempora! O mores!), and most of my concerns were addressed there. So it's down to a few quibbles and final polishing for a comprehensive, involving account.
War in the Pacific: "Nixon angrily objected..." At present the adverb reads like interpretation. If it's in the source, maybe the sentence could be rephrased to make this clear.
Debut of the Pink Sheet
In the second line we have "Roosevelt" and "Mrs Roosevelt", both referring to the same person, I think – though as James is a candidate in the election I can't be sure. Later we have "Delegate Roosevelt", again referring to Mrs R. These forms can cause confusion; I've had a go at resolving it, but please amend if you have a better idea.
Barkley: "...the best he could say" again reads like your interpretation, and should be reworded
Name-calling
Virtually no British readers, and perhaps not that many contemporary Americans, will know that "the future chief justice" refers to Warren, so I wouldn't use that description. It reads just as well with "Warren"
Clarify who "Joe Holt" is (the reporter, I assume, but it's not totally clear).
Aftermath
Style issue: it may be just me, but beginning a sentence "Mused an aide" doesn't seem encyclopedic in style, more like reporting, or literature?
"In 1956, though,..." I don't see the purpose of "though"
Long, scruffy sentence with two "ands"; suggest it is rephrased/split: "When the alleged statements were reported, Nixon denied them, and issued press releases defending his campaign, and stating that any impression that Douglas was pro-communist was 'justified by her own record'."
General: No-break space lapses, specifically "160 acres" but there may be more.
The tabulations are excellent. A fine article overall. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, I've made some changes. As a note, disambiguating two Eleanor Roosevelts in the article, plus James, plus the shadow of FDR hanging over things, led to some judgment calls. I called her "Delegate Roosevelt" as an effort to give her a title she had earned, rather than one through marriage. I see that's been changed to "Mrs." and that's fine. I've added in an extra "James" and the first bare "Roosevelt" is now three paragraphs away from the last mention of Eleanor, and I think it is pretty clear from context that James Roosevelt is being referred to. The Barkley anecdote was added very recently, and I've rephrased for a direct quote from Time. I've changed "future chief justice" to "him". Joe Holt is mentioned earlier in the paragraph; he's the Young Republican (and future congressman) who pestered Douglas into the statement, but I've added an extra "Holt" for clarity. The tabulations took me hours last night; I got the official returns yesterday afternoon, glad you like them. I think I caught all the nonbreaking spaces, but if anyone sees one I missed, please let me know. I've cleared up the other things you mentioned. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- a very strong support at that. It's a fabulous article about one of the most fascinating and captivating Senate races in U.S. history. I gave this article a detailed GA review a few months back and quickly passed it, as Wehwalt had completed all that was necessary to do so. And Brianboulton, an editor whom I have worked with well in the past on Pat Nixon's article, gave it a peer review; his suggestions were readily implemented by Wehwalt. I give my full support to the article. My only hope is for a public domain image of Helen Douglas, though I'm sure that one can be found somewhere. Excellent job to all parties involved, especially Wehwalt! My best, Happyme22 (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I haven't given up on the public domain photo of Douglas, I've looked through the photo listing in the Douglas archives and there is nothing that looks pd. I'm planning to call the LBJ archives in Texas, LBJ appointed her to the US delegation to Liberia President Tubman's inauguration. That failing, I'm hopeful there will be a group shot of the committees she served on but I really need to go personally to the Library of Congress on that and I can't do that for two weeks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:Strong oppose: Significant problems in the prose, unlikely to be overcome given the nominator's objection to being told about them.I think this one is going to make it, but more work is needed by an independent copy-editor, throughout. The following observations from the top show a few issues that recur throughout. Careful auditing of comma usage, for example, would improve the text. But that's not all.
"Communistic" is not a word I've seen before; what about plain "communist"?
Small point: "Nixon's attacks were far more effective, and he won the election by almost 20 percentage points, winning 53 of California's 58 counties and all metropolitan areas." Avoid repetition by using "carrying 53"?
"Nixon–Douglas race"—an opposition, so en dash required, not hyphen.
"to reluctance of voters in 1950 to vote for a woman"—nope: where there's an "of" to the right, put a "the" to the left.
"The campaign gave rise to two memorable political nicknames, both either coined by Boddy or making their first appearance in his newspaper: "the Pink Lady" for Douglas and "Tricky Dick" for Nixon." I'm trying to determine whether the "either" means we just don't know which. See the ambiguity?
"and had been elected to the Senate as a liberal, but as senator his stances gradually began to favor corporate interests."—the turning angle is enough to require a semicolon, not a comma.
This sentence turns to porridge towards the end: "Douglas, a former actress and opera singer, and the wife of actor Melvyn Douglas, had represented the 14th congressional district, which combined Hollywood with a large part of poverty-stricken South Central Los Angeles, since 1945, compiling a liberal record in the House of Representatives."
When we first hit "House of Representatives", then "House", do we know whether this is in Sacramento or Washington DC? Foreigners, even Americans, may need to have this clarified.
Remove comma after "1946" for better flow?
As a meta-comment, most of the reasons provided in the previous review in support of the declaration "Strong support" do not appear to be relevant. Please address the criteria. Tony(talk) 12:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting way to get out of saying good things about the article, Tony. Obviously your oppose is not motivated by the prose, but by our disagreement. I tried to apologize, you respond by switching from comments to strong oppose. I guess your oppose is not actionable. It's also contrary to the truth, as you know, Tony, I've asked for a copyedit, and have made most suggested changes. I'll leave it at that, I'm starting to get hot under the collar.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. I'm not 100% sure it needs another copyedit, as two editors (including Happyme22, by the way) have gone through it pretty thorougly. However, I'll see if I can get someone to take a look. Communistic is a word, see here, though I've taken it out of the lede, Douglas uses the word later in the article and I was echoing that in the lede, but not much either way, I guess. I've changed "House of Representatives" to "United States House of Representatives". If Boddy didn't coin the terms, he certainly approved them, the Daily News became his campaign newspaper, I'll strike the word "either", but it is a subtle point. I'll rephrase the paragraph on Douglas and use the alternative word you suggest, and carry out your other fine points. I split up the Downey sentence, mooting the need for the semicolon. Thanks again!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect to Tony, I really don't think the article needs a third copyedit. It has not substantially changed since it went to GAN, and both Happyme22 and BrianBoulton went through it pretty carefully. I'm going to wait and see what the community thinks of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think Tony is quite right, the prose is still a bit clunky in places, and it does need a proper copyedit. For instance:
"Buoyed by polls in early April giving Nixon some chance of winning the Democratic nomination, thus effectively securing his election, Nixon sent out mailings to Democratic voters in the hope of winning that party's poll."
"Nixon was born of a working class family, growing up in Whittier ...".
"Douglas leased the craft from a Republican-owned helicopter company in Palo Alto, which hoped her influence would lead to a defense contract."
"While debates did not take place among the candidates ...". "While" implies simultaneity.
"... he held a grudge against Democratic gubernatorial candidate James Roosevelt". "Gubernatorial" is a word unlikely to be familiar to anyone outside of the US.
"Nixon assailed Douglas for advocating giving Taiwan's Security Council seat ..."
"... the former actress called for the President's ouster once the Watergate scandal broke". "Ouster" is a legal term to do with the eviction from freehold property.
Thanks for the comments. I'll make a few of those changes. While ouster is indeed a legal term, please see here "ouster from office" is a common term, and I'll modify to that. I will amend to "Democratic candidate for governor" and I've changed that debate thing. I don't know who to ask about a copyedit. Suggestions? Volunteers?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, I've provided ample evidence, at random, of why a copy-edit is required. I note that the nominator has taken it upon himself to bad-mouth me elsewhere, in a rather nasty, irrelevant, unexplained way: "Could I get you to hold your nose and at least take a look at this? Tony1 is saying it needs a copyediting, and I think it's garbage and he is showing why he's on editing restriction." I believe this is unacceptable bullying of a reviewer; if this kind of behaviour starts cropping up, no one will dare to make comments, let alone oppose. I must ask you to read WP:CIVILITY very carefully. I'm watching this nomination to see what is done about the prose. Tony(talk) 16:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tony, I'm sorry that you were offended. Perhaps a better way of handling your hurt would have been to post on my talk page, or via email, and let us work things out. I don't think I would recommend the route you took, of posting on my talk page that you had "complained" to the two FA delegates, and also posting at length here. Did that make the process regarding this article better or fairer? Did that make me more likely to accept your comments as borne of a genuine desire to improve Wikipedia? My comment, which was on another editor's talk page, was born of frustration. Tony, what emotion sparked you to post what you did on the FAC page for the article, and on Karanac's talk page, and on SandyGeorgia's talk page, and then to tell me what you had done? Was that the right thing to do? Think about it please.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not your place to lecture me about how to complain about your attempts to intimidate a reviewer. I'm entirely satisfied with the course of action I've thus far taken. In addition, you might take a look through WP:ADMIN: see the bit about setting an example for all WPians? Tony(talk) 02:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, at this point, you are plainly allowing your anger to rule what you are doing on this page. I suggest you calm down, you are not helping anyone. Do you remember these examples cited here? You are doing the same thing again, and it is not benefitting you or anyone. Let's have a truce, OK?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Agree with Tony that a copyedit is required, and I've undertaken one [7]. I think at least one more good copyedit would be helpful. I definitely think that there's an FA in here, though, and expect to support before this process is complete. Besides the copyediting I've done, here are some issues:
The lead's not in great shape. The first paragraph almost functions as a lead to the lead, summarizing the next three paragraphs, which results in a great deal of repetition.
I'm having some trouble reconciling that Marcantonio rarely discussed communism but was known for opposing restrictions on communists. This may not be a problem - I need to think about it some more.
"...hoping her influence would lead to a defense contract for the company." This looks like a possible dangling modifier. As it reads now, Douglas hoped that the company would get a defense contract. It seems more likely to me that the company hoped that.
"Northern California" - is this a clearly-defined area? If not, the N should be lowercase.
Some of the organization seems less than intuitive: for example, one paragraph begins by talking about Knight deciding not to run and then veers off into talking about Nixon's speaking tour. Another starts off by talking about Nixon's abilities as a fundraiser and then abruptly switches to talking about Alger Hiss. With the nominator's permission, I'd be willing to try some reorganization.
I really dislike "War in the Pacific" as a section header, first because a great deal of the material below it isn't about the Korean War at all and second because it makes me think of World War II, not of Korea.
"According to Tipton, "They fell for it." Tipton was confident that Nixon "couldn't keep up the red smear indefinitely"." Some elaboration is required here; I don't really understand what there was to "fall" for.
I'm not clear on how this whisper campaign took aim at Melvyn Douglas's Jewish heritage if it was about his being a communist. Is there some kind of Jew-communist connection I'm missing?
"...and Humphrey Bogart introduced Melvyn Douglas on radio." The relevance of this isn't immediately apparent.
"Chotiner publicized this response as an endorsement of Nixon, which Warren could not deny..." Why couldn't he deny it?
There's considerable inconsistency in the article over whether positions are capitalized (lieutenant-governor, senator, vice president, etc.) and I have no been able to glean the rule that is being applied. Can you explain it to me?
There's considerable discussion in the final section about the Korean War costing Democrats' support, but I can't find anything in the account of the campaign itself that would suggest that.Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting pretty close now. I think the prose is pretty close at this point (though I'll go over it one more time), and I've struck most of my concerns above (particular kudos for the lead, which is miles better than it was when I last looked at this). Two of the remaining three should be easy enough to address, though I still think that the "trap" that Douglas was apparently trying to set by accusing Nixon of voting with Marcantonio is unclear. I'd suggest clarifying or, if the sources don't allow this, just deleting language referring to it being a ploy and leaving only the bare factual details (Douglas made this allegation in her opening speech, Nixon responded as he did). But as I said, I think we're very close; thanks for your patience. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I capitalize when it is part of a title, as in Senator Nixon, but I would not capitalize "Nixon, the senator". However, I always capitalize President or Vice President when it is referring to the then-incumbent. I think that is MOS. Am I a deviationist? I will expand the Bogie bit, he was a Douglas supporter. Can you come back to my talk page for discussion on the Tipton issue? I'd like your thoughts but I don't want to make this page longer than I have to.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He voted against contempt citations for people hauled before HUAC who took the fifth or kept silent. "War in the Pacific" is a reference both to Korea, and to California, if you don't like it, I can easily substitute "early campaign". I'll strike the Warren language. Celebrity endorsements are often well thought of. I'll rephrase a bit on Melvyn Douglas. I'll link to Northern California, and all five counties fall into that category. If you are willing to do a complete copyediting, Steve, I have no objection to a reorganization. I just don't want people to do part and then say "please get another copyediting". I'm happy to have one person do it. Be bold. Just let me know. I spent the day hard at work in the library researching images for this article and right now I'm not feeling very enthusiastic, forgive me.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, there was an error in the whispering campaign sentence introduced by an editor trying to be helpful in this process, but I wasn't clear about what was being said before she made the change, and I've rephrased. Sorry about he confusion.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think we're finally there; good work to all involved. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There isn't really a proper first sentence in this article, as per the WP:LEAD guidelines. It just kinda jumps in with talking about the campaign. The rocky start to the article might be what's setting a problem elsewhere. It just needs a "The 1950 United States Senate election in California..." Wizardman 03:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, in the effort to repeat the name of the article, the first sentence becomes more abrupt. I like the way it is currently. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If others are fine with it I won't push, I'm just saying it feels like it goes too deep into what the article is about for a first sentence. Wizardman 03:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote it intentionally that way. It's famous for three things, Nixon, Douglas, and nastiness. May as well tell the reader that right up front.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Tony. To me the tone of the way the article is generally written doesn't seem right, a lot of it, particularly the Democratic contest section reads like a magazine or a narrative rather than an encyclopedic account. I think it needs major copyediting and to reword many of the gossip-sounding sentences into ones which read as more encyclopedic.
Hi, thanks for the thought, but I'm not quite sure what you mean. Can you give one or two examples for my benefit and that of those who may copyedit, plus how you would like to see them? I should add that I really don't see what you mean about "gossip", the 1950 Senate race has been extensively written about, and these are all incidents from major historical books about the candidates. And for my guidance, you say "Per Tony". Tony has opposed on the ground that I won't agree to a copyedit. Is that the basis for your oppose?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Yes, I think it needs a copy edit. I'll find some examples shortly. It is mostly in regard to quotes I think. A lot of them don't seem to help the articles. E.g "You don't know anyone who has any money, do you? We have a campaign on and no money—and I mean no money". I think it could just be plainly written in prose that they had no money, plain and simple, I don't think the quote really adds anything. This is what I mean when I say a copy edit and taking out unnecessary quotes which don't enchance an understanding or if they do they beat around the bush so to speak. Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 14:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know what other concerns you come up with, and I'll take a look at them. I will admit that I went to some length to give Douglas' perspective, thus the quotes. I'd really like to be able to say more about Boddy, but he left no archives that I can discover and has had no biographer.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's the section I mean, Boddy versus Douglas. I think you should cut down on the quotes and write more in prose and do so in a way where the section doesn't read as if its literally a verbal face off. I know politics is a nasty business and I know this is what the section is about but I just think there is an encyclopedic way you can present both sides and write more of an account of it in your own words rather than somebody said this, he responded with saying ......, he laughed off etc. You see what I mean? A few quotes provinding they further an understanding is good but not to the extent where is starts to read as a narrative.Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 14:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Is it just that section? I don't see it as much in the rest of the article, personally. Thank you, that is very constructive. I'd value feedback on the rest of the article. I'm going to try to keep this FAC going.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut back on the quotes and combined two of the paragraphs, and taken out the interaction between the two. I think the remaining quotes are justified. Possibly the paragraph about Pepper could be taken out, but as the Pepper race and the Nixon/Douglas race are closely linked, I think it is best to keep it in. Let me know your thoughts please.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's better already. I feel that the article needs a final copy edit."The laughter recurred as Nixon, sitting behind Douglas as she spoke, fidgeted to show his disapproval of what she was saying, while Douglas appeared bewildered at the laughter. After Douglas finished her remarks, Nixon rose to speak again, but Douglas left rather than listen to him." I think this could be reworded, also "Douglas appeared bewildered at the laughter" looks like original research. "After Douglas finished her remarks" ? After Douglas finished her remarks? I don't follow. "Finished remarks" seems a little clumsy, maybe "completed her speech"?Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 15:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made that change, thanks. Douglas appearing bewildered at the laughter is straight out of the book, but I didn't want to do it as a quote, because it wouldn't be improved by making it a quote. Obviously it stems from Bill Arnold's perspective, since he is a Nixon partisan I mention inline that it's his story, but the fact that it was put into the book makes it an appropriate secondary source. Both of these events were officially "off the record" events, so there is no contemporary news coverage to appeal to. Please feel free to let me know anything else you see that needs improving. Malleus is going to do a copyedit. I can certainly drop a note on your talk page once that has been done and hopefully you'll reconsider your oppose. Thanks! Very constructive.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support This has improved considerably thanks to the copyediting by Matisse. I now think it is almost there. Keep up the good work. Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 10:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks. I'd welcome further feedback either here or better yet on the article talk page since this is getting to be very long and that can be a turnoff to reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review part 2 - Three new images have been added. Let us check those out.
File:Meyercard.jpg - This is the one that I was most unsure about. This is a pretty unfancy envelope, but it still might be eligible for copyright; I don't know if {{pd-ineligible}} would apply here. However, I would like a third opinion on this one please. (Also, could you categorize it)
File:Douglasenv.jpg - This doesn't seem like something that would be part of the House of Representatives, but the House does seem to claim that it is part of the Congressional Record, which would make it PD. That looks good.
Meyercard.jpg is a business card, containing his name, degrees, address, and phone numbers. None of which are subject to copyright. It's like a telephone directory. I'm pretty pleased with myself for finding it in the Nixon archives, didn't expect to have anything relating to Meyer in this article, but apparently he came to Nixon hq and left his card (after reciting his campaign speech to the receptionist). I think it's PD, but can you get someone to doublecheck?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awadewit's note on my talk page, as well as your explanation, convinces me as to the copyright ineligibility of that image. So, images all look good now. NW(Talk) 21:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A newly-added image lacks alt text; please add it. In general, when an image is added, alt text for it should be added too. In reviewing the altviewer output, could someone please make a pass through the alt text and punctuate it properly? Some entries are sentences but lack initial cap and/or final period; other entries are not sentences but lack a final period. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that. Mattisse has spent much of the day copyediting the article, when she is done I'll take care of that punctuation. When I run the viewer, all entries have alt text. Is there a particular image that you see as not having it?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse has done a wonderful copyedit of the article, keeping the article compelling yet smoothing out the little quirks of my writing style! I think the article is much improved, and I'd ask those who indicated that it needed a copyedit to take a second look and see if it is good. Incidentally, I did change that "War in the Pacific" heading.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsJoint appearances - I'm a little confused here, exactly which "Eleanor Roosevelt" sent the letter? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TR's daughter in law, not FDR's widow. I've made that clearer. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support After reading the article, and other reviewer's comments, it is my opinion that this article meets the four criteria. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 16:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed that at the time of his frenzied campaign to discredit me as a reviewer, aided by Ottava Rima, the nominator went so far as to try to smeer me on the talk page of one of the ArbCom arbtirators, here, accusing me of incivility. I think this attempt to intimidate, humiliate, and damage a reviewer—for what was and remains a very straightforward review that contains not a jot of incivility—needs to be taken into account when this person has anything to do with future FA nominations. Above all, it is critical that reviewers feel they are free to provide feedback and assessment without fear that a nominator will run amok trying to damage them. All of this, and I didn't even oppose. I do not understand it. It's like "How dare you say anything critical about my article." Tony(talk) 03:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with Wehwalt's behavior completely, but I think it's best if you leave this matter Tony. It's run its course, and no need to open old wounds. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respect Tony's position, but will not reply; anyone wishing to have a discussion is free to approach me off wiki. I should add that Tony did oppose, on the ground that a copyedit was needed and that I was unlikely to allow it, the article has been copyedited twice by Mattisse and Steve Smith, and those changes stand; I asked Tony to reconsider his oppose, here is the diff he did not choose to reply, as he did not choose to reply to my apology to him which Sandy applauded when she saw it. I think at this point, we should view Tony's concern regarding the article as acted upon, and move ahead. Tony himself noted that there was an FA in there when he made his original comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Steve Smith and others. The article is thoroughly referenced from multiple sources. It has also been intensively copyedited for prose issues, and all the problems noted above have been addressed and more. The last copyedit by Steve Smith upped the quality another notch. This is an in depth treatment of a controversial event, and the editor has done an excellent job of providing the differing views on the subject. The prose allows the article to retains the flavor of the times through descriptions of the incidents characterizing the campaign, which adds interest and dimension to the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article now has five six supports, including the GA reviewer, the peer reviewer, and three reviewers here who have gone through the article in considerable detail subsequent to Tony's oppose, which despite my request, he has not revisited, but we've done what he asked. Image and technical checks have been completed. I would submit it meets standards for promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What date style is the article using ? This citation mixes two date formats:
Also, on the lead infobox, it looks huge. I tried to read the template code, but I don't speak that language. Is it within the 300px size? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Date formatting fixed.
MOSNUM permits text expression of numerals of one or two words, and "thirty" falls into that category. I have never been able to get beyond eighth grade English class, and so generally prefer text where possible and permissible. Note that in the Pink Sheet section, though, I do use a number for 64. But for a one word numeral, I tend to go with text.
I've simply used the infobox formats used in all California Senate election articles. See, for example United States Senate election in California, 1994. This article is careful to follow the practices established by those, since it is one of a series, and I don't want to vary from the standardized layout, and so this article uses similar infoboxes, templates, tables, etc. I would advise against shrinking the infobox, even if we could figure out how. It looks fine, includes three nice images, and gives the reader important summary information.
Hope this helps. Thanks for the catch on the dates.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"a Republican-owned helicopter company in Palo Alto"—The party is in the helicopter business?
The business card image is just a brown blop. No one could ever read a word on it. Please enlarge the pic so it's functional on the page. Other images contain details that suggest a larger size is required; thumbnails default to 180px for our readers, which is rather small. See Eleanor R., envelope, opera house ... Tony(talk) 09:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meta-comment: " I think at this point, we should view Tony's concern regarding the article as acted upon, and move ahead." Ah, no, you presume far too much. I have not changed my "Strong oppose". Tony(talk) 09:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony: I've made those changes. Please let us know if you have any more concerns. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering Tony's ongoing strong oppose, I looked at two sections and left notes on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you Sandy. I am not home until late tonight, but will make the suggested changes and additional referencing then. I've already adjusted the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've carefully (I hope) spellchecked the article (for some reason, my browser doesn't seem to like "fundraising"), checked the lede to make sure that everything in there is supported in the article, and been proactive in looking at the rest of the article for the glitches Sandy was kind enough to point out. I think it's all done. All comments made by reviewers have been responded to and in most cases addressed (or explained why it shouldn't be so). Six supports, with an oppose whose stated concerns have been addressed. I think it meets the criteria for promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony has been kind enough to strike his strong oppose, for which I thank him.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So we're at six supports, no opposes, technical check done, image check done, everything in order.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (with a couple of comments). I'm here somewhat at random after having a quick interaction with Wehwalt and deciding to read through this article. I've never done one of these reviews before, and I gather this comes a little late in the game, but as someone with a decent amount of historical knowledge with respect to this topic I figured it's worthwhile to weigh in, since most of the other reviewers are commenting on issues of prose, sources, logic of argument, etc. From a purely historical perspective I think this is rather well done. I don't see any errors of fact and I checked up on a number of things. For example I was surprised by the fact that Douglas apparently mentioned Marcantonio and Nixon vote similarities before Nixon ever got into a Douglas-Marcantonio connection, but the 1950 NYT article (which I read on ProQuest) at least partially bears that out. On the whole I think the topic is covered quite fairly (though I have one general quibble - see below) and the "history and legend" section is particularly effective as an overall evaluation. A few small concerns follow, but they do not alter my support for this being promoted to FA status.
Quite trivial, but the wording in footnote 52 is rather imprecise, particularly references to an "explanation" (obviously referring to an explanation for why "Eleanor Roosevelt" sent Nixon a check). Perhaps, for example, instead of saying, "Morris does not mention an explanation of "which Eleanor Roosevelt"... you could say "Morris does not mention a clarification by Nixon as to which "Eleanor Roosevelt" sent the check..." (or something similar).
On two occasions you cite Murray Chotiner's view of a particular situation where we might have reason to doubt his reliability as a source. First you note that "Chotiner stated twenty years later that Marcantonio suggested the comparison of voting records, as he disliked Douglas for failing to support his beliefs fully." It would be really nice to have backup for that (I can't access the original article but in historian (not Wikipedian) parlance it would be considered a "primary source"), though the suggestion is not completely unbelievable. The second instance, where you say, "Chotiner later stated that the color choice was made at the print shop when campaign officials approved the final copy, as the color appealed to them" is more problematic. Your footnote points out that Chotiner told multiple versions of the story, and it's a highly self-serving account (making what many would view as a Machiavellian move by a political operator schooled in red-baiting tactics seem to be little more than a random aesthetic choice). Though an interesting detail, you might want to remove it unless you can also include a historian's evaluation of its reliability or an alternative view suggesting that the color selection was not a matter of mere chance. Personally given the circumstances I don't find Chotiner's claim particularly credible.
One-third of numbered footnotes come from Gellman's book (and actually probably a higher percentage of the inline citations). Academic and non-academic reviews of the book (though I only found one of the former on America: History and Life) praise Gellman for his archival diligence, but at the same time view the book as a bit of an apologetic for Nixon (Gellman obviously cast it as a "revisionist" account). I've hunted around and I'm guessing it might be the most well-researched book that discussed the 1950 campaign in great detail but I'm curious if other (more recent) books or articles have taken different views of the campaign using the same sources Gellman first gained access to in the mid-1990s. Thi s is more something to think about for the future though as improvements are made after the article is (hopefully) promoted, and in general I think you did an excellent job keeping the article NPOV.
Again, none of that precludes me from supporting the promotion of this to featured status—just a couple of suggestions. Props to Wehwalt for all the effort on this article, particularly given the importance of this election to post-WWII American political history. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There are several versions of each Chotiner story out there. Most Nixon bios mention that Nixon and Marcantonio were at least cordial, if not friends. A couple of them do have Marcantonio saying words to the effect of "Tell Dicky to get in on this thing" when he heard of Boddy's attacks during the primary. As for the Pink Sheet, most bios mention some version of Chotiner's story, but don't pass judgment on his truthfulness (though the man was a compulsive exaggerator, in my view, which explains why all the clients he was hailed before Congress for supposedly influence peddling lost their cases!) The reader will have to make his own judgment, I'm afraid. It's worth including, but it is not fully credible, I agree. Gellman writes the most lucid account of the 1950 campaign, which is why I relied heavily on him, but I'm careful to cite to him for facts, and given the wealth of legend surrounding the 1950 campaign, I cited little that was not in at least two accounts. Where he strays into opinion, however, that is clearly labeled in the article! I was talking with the archivist at the Nixon Library about him, it seems the second part of his bio about Nixon was greatly delayed due to illness, but is now just about done. I would say that Gellman and Black take a slight apologist view, but Morris and Mitchell take the opposite view, and Ambrose takes a neutral view, but his view is relatively early and he doesn't go into 1950 in great detail (Ambrose is writing about the first fifty years of Nixon's life in one volume, so it is less detailed) I also have an additional book, which I read part of while waiting for material at the Nixon Library, by Jonathan Aicken coming, perhaps I'll portion out some of the cites to him. I'll clean up that footnote, it became less precise in the course of copyeditiong of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, Chotiner's actual comment on the Pink Sheet, "it just seemed to appeal to us, for the moment" is decidedly more ambiguous. I was asked to take as many quotes as possible out, because I tend to overinclude them, as an attorney, but that one I think I will put back in. It is unclear, and I think intentionally so, whether he's talking about aesthetic choice or whether they had a great idea at the print shop and had a The Prince moment.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Another one of my German battleship FACs, this article was significantly rewritten over the past couple of months. It passed GA in May and WP:MILHIST A-class review a few days ago. I think the article is at or close to FA standards; any comments that help me get all the way there are appreciated. I've added alt text to the images, though I'm still a little unsure of how that's supposed to be done, so if it needs work, please let me know. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis good, as far as Cr. 1a goes.
WP:LINK advises against the linking of common geographical locations (like Germany). Any reason to here? It's a very big article. I see that "German Imperial Navy" is linked a second later ...
"Kaiser" is italicised at the opening, but not in the title. Is this correct?
Minus sign for -8. It's in the edit tools under the edit window ("Insert" tab), before the multiplication sign.
I think MOSNUM says to spell out 160 here: "160 99.9 lb shells".
Avoid multihyphen bracket monster by inverting the order: "the ships had a 4 cm (1.6 in)-thick torpedo bulkhead" -> "the ships had a torpedo bulkhead 4 cm (1.6 in) thick".
"yards"—do we provide metric equivalents for this situation?
"caliber" is US spelling; I'd have thought this had enough reference to the UK to be otherwise, but maybe I'm wrong. Tony(talk) 12:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking this stuff, Tony. I'm not quite sure what you mean by your second bullet; do you mean the large bold title "Kaiser class battleship" at the top of the page. I am unfamiliar with any way of italicizing the actual title. I fixed the "160 -> one hundred and sixty", the bracket/hyphen issue you pointed out, and the missing conversion you mentioned. As for US/UK spelling, the way I see it, "national ties to a topic" only applies to British ships. Another issue is, I wrote my first FA, SMS Von der Tann, and I did try to stick with British English, since that was how it was originally written. I found this to be extremely difficult and time-consuming; I'm an American, and the time spent trawling the article for words I spelled out of habit in AE that needed to be switched to BE could have been more usefully spent elsewhere. I have since stopped doing this. Thanks again for your review. Parsecboy (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahoy there Good read but:
"30.5 m (100 ft)" would make those pretty long barreled guns, any chance that was 30.5mm calibre?
I'm not sure about "The ships lost speed up to 66 percent and heeled over 8 degrees" was that meant to be "The ships lost speed up to 66 percent when heeled over 8 degrees".
The lead describes the ships as "raised and broken up for scrap between 1930 and 1937" but later you give March 29 as the date for the raising of one of them.
the lead mentions their involvement in operation Albion, but I could find no mention of this in the main article.
could you check your sources re their having 88mm flak guns, my understanding was that flak guns came later, after aircraft had become dangerous.ϢereSpielChequers 23:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking the article. Yes, somehow the template got messed up (probably a copy-paste error on my part, I'd guess); it should have been 30.5cm (12in). The speed loss and heel figures were when the ship was turning at the tightest angle, I apparently didn't say that in the text. Kaiser wasn't actually broken up until 1930, which is probably what I was thinking when I wrote the lead. I changed it to 1929 to avoid any confusion. Thanks for catching my forgetting of Albion, I'll add an appropriate section tomorrow when I have the time. As for the flak guns, they were indeed added later in the war. Groner's states "four [two] 8.8 cm/45 AA guns (2,500 rounds)", the "[two]" indicates that two of the guns were later removed. Further information on the flak guns can be found here. It does seem a little odd that the Germans were fitting AA guns to their warships, but I'd wager a guess it had to do with the Cuxhaven Raid of 1914. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, may I suggest adding a note to the effect that they were originally built without flak guns but had later had .... installed.ϢereSpielChequers 08:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've added the section on Operation Albion and reworded the sentence about the Flak guns to make clear that they were added to the ship later. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was interesting. Two minor points:
Four tubes on the broadside - unless they were on a turntable on the deck I'm assuming this was either two tubes on each side of the ship, or four on one side and none on the other?
South America and South Africa, as Germany had a colony in what is now Namibia, I wonder if you might check whether that was South America and Southern Africa as it would be odd for them to go nearby and not visit their own colony.
Yes, there were two tubes on each side of the ship, which I have now clarified. Groner's states "These ships participated in the first major trial overseas of a detached division, to South America and South Africa in 1913–14, with the light cruiser Strassburg." It doesn't say anything more specific about which ports were visited. It is entirely possible that the ships never visited German South-West Africa, the German African colonies were a sort of useless backwater (Herwig's Luxury Fleet has an excellent chapter detailing the utterly deplorable conditions in the German overseas possessions, pp 95–110). Parsecboy (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking in to that, thats me done; But looking at the picture of the Prinzregent Luitpold I think its a photo rather than an illustration, and you might want to talk to user:Durova as to how those photos could be restored. ϢereSpielChequers 19:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with one picky comment. Shouldn't the notes be listed as [Note 1] etc instead of [Notes 1]? "notes" is plural. --Brad (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. That's how I had been doing it in other articles, but at some point I randomly added the "s". Thanks for pointing that out. Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful job, no complaints from me Burningview (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gave this one the tick in MILHIST ACR and it's only improved since then. One thing though in Operation Albion... You finish with the expression the German army held their objectives. First off, "the army" is singular, so you need "its", not "their". Secondly, I would say one "attains objectives", or "holds gains", but not "holds objectives" - suggest you substitute one of those alternatives I've mentioned... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing it again, Ian. I fixed the wording issue as you suggested. Parsecboy (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: Are we sure that File:SMS Kaiser steaming to Scapa.PNG is a work of the British government? It's an Imperial War Museum photograph, but does that mean that it was actually created by the British government? As well, the image's date needs to go on its description page. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's really the only possibility; the German fleet was under British escort for majority of their trip from Germany to Scapa, which included observation blimps. Parsecboy (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with that (I'd missed that the photo was taken post-armistice, which is why it struck me as unlikely to be a British government photo). The date still needs to go on the description page, though. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the date and a short caption. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All quiet on the image front. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The {{main}} templates appear to be incorrectly used in this article. "Main" is used when this article is a summary of that article. This article discusses one class of ships, so it's unlikely that it's a summary of a battle. The templates should be switched to a further information or see also. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I didn't know that before. I guess I have some other articles to fix as well. I've changed them all here to {{detail}}. Thanks Sandy. Parsecboy (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the FA criteria. Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks.The two three two images need alt text as per WP:ALT.Eubulides (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These seem to have now been added. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but they still need work. The Gygax image says "Gary Gygax" in the alt text, which isn't right; most readers don't know what Gygax looked like. The isocahedron is purely decorative and should not have neither alt text nor a link. Please see WP:ALT #What not to specify. Eubulides (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the Gygax one again. What's the third image, if the Icosahedron isn't it? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my remark wasn't right and I've changed the "three" back to "two". Like all images, the icosahedron either needs alt text, or it needs to be marked with "|link=" (it's OK to do both). But after I looked at it more carefully I noticed that it is purely decorative. So it should be marked with "|link=". It can keep the alt text if you like. Eubulides (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the alt text. Eubulides (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Current ref 5 (Schick...) lacks a page number. As it's 448 pages, we need something a bit more specific to satisfy WP:V
Current ref 8 (D&D Alumni..) Current ref 9 (Design..) and 10 (Spotlight..) need last access dates. Also, can we format these like the other website refs? (remove the "from"?)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made some adjustments. I've asked at the wikiproject if someone know the page for the Schick book. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found the page # using Amazon.com's book search. It may be 1 or 2 off because of how that tool is setup, but that's probably the best that can be done (the user who added the link hasn't been around for quite awhile, IIRC, and I don't think that any of the remaining project members have a copy of the book). Is that good enough? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Make it a page range to be safe and we're good. (example if you think it's page 13, put in pp. 11-15) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can do. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support—It appears to meet the FA criteria. Thank you for your work on this article. Comment—Reading the text left some issues unresolved in my mind, so I'm not fully convinced it is comprehensive. Thus:
What would the characters be doing up in the Barrier Peaks in the first place? How does the plot draw them to that location?
The text describes this mission as the character's job. Are they hired to resolve this situation?
Why would it matter that a stream of monsters have been appearing from a cave in the mountains? Are there settlements nearby that are being impacted?
What are the secrets that are revealed by the cover illustration? (Note that the image is reduced in size, so some of the details are fuzzy.)
Could these questions be answered by the article? Thank you. :-) —RJH (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to get to these questions tonight if no one beats me to it. :) BOZ (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this answers the first three questions. I can add more detail if you feel it's needed. I've been trying to keep the Plot part short, since the whole article isn't that large.
The last question is a bit harder. Here's the source sentence: "An A4 book of 32 pages describes the environment in detail, with a cover that reveals the secret of the creatures." I think the "A4" part is a typo, or introduced by a bad scan. The main cover, File:S3ModuleCover.jpg, shows a party of three adventurers fighting a plant/octopus creature. One of the main creatures in the module is the "cute little bunnyoid on the stump" which turns into a multi-armed creature, although the interior illustration of it is by a different artist and looks quite different. Not sure what to do exactly. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I didn't think it was necessary to remove it; I just wondered whether that could be clarified. I would have no heartburn about leaving that quote in place.
I suspect that at least one of the secrets being revealed by the cover is the use of the plasma beam weapon, in contrast to the usual D&D weaponry.—RJH (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right, but I don't want to commit WP:OR if I can help it. I figured out that the A4 thing is a reference to paper size, thank goodness. Now, the secret of the module is that the creatures coming from the mountains are coming out of a downed spaceship. The review says the module has a "cover that reveals the secret of the creatures." I also believe it's based on the blaster gun and the high tech gas mask that one of the party members is waring (here's a bigger image of the cover). I'll think about how to best word it, or if someone has an idea, I'm all ears. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I came up with. I tried to sidestep the OR issue by putting the relevant info in, and people can put two and two together if they wish. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good :) bring on the froghemoth and vegepygmies ;) Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support(moral or otherwise as sometime D&D contributor) I have read this a couple of times over, and nothing jumps out as neding improving. The prose is clear, succinct and flows well, and it is about as comprehensive as I can think of. The secret revealed on the front cover is the use of a space gun/pistol by one of the adventurers. I remember this as being a talking point. I remember when I bought it in 1980 or 1981 I had no idea about the space concept until I opened it. Thing is, players playing a module spend alot of time staring at the cover (itching to open it :))) ), hence the allusion to picking up clues looking at it. Not sure where this is going, but I would think working the secret back in is good if it can be done. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Most of the writing looks quite reasonable. I went through it and found only a handful of picky things to complain about.
"It included a seperate booklet of illustrations, both color and black and white." Should it be "in both color and black and white", or is my proposal just wordy?
Watch for overlinking. I doubt many of our readers need a further explanation for virus or robot, and they have little to do with the topic.
Publication history: It could be made clearer that the "What could be more logical" quote was from Gygax (assuming that it was).
Reception: I assume that reference 11 is citing all these quotes from judges? Not a problem per se, but be careful if someone adds content in the middle of this paragraph; some of the early quotes could be left uncited.
I would like to see a comma after "on both sides of the same sheet."
"(This a visual barrier...)". Missing word.Giants2008 (17–14) 14:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. I delinked what you mentioned, as well as Extraterrestrials in fiction, video game, Baltimore, Maryland and a few others. Hopefully that's about right. I clarified the Gygax quote, and reused the refs in the body. For "(This a visual barrier...)", I removed "This" instead of adding "is", hopefully that works. I also fixed the other stuff you mentioned. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional support – Prose seems up to scratch, but on a second look, I noticed one of those over-referencing clumps that Tony refers to. In the second paragraph of Publication history, three straight sentences are cited by reference 9. Nothing in those sentences strikes me as controversial in the least, so I recommend taking out two of the three, and leaving the one after "version 3.5 rules." Giants2008 (17–14) 00:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well-enough written. But needs an over-referencing audit.
Deceptive piped link, first line: "Adventure" goes to somewhere quite different. Can you work out how to change the piping or relocate the link so readers will know what they're going to? No one will click on "adventure" in that context.
"Stream of monsters" ... "succession"?
Ref. number formatting: "[6]:29" etc. Is this within the guidelines? I've not seen it before. It's a logical formatting, if we can get people used to it.
Over-referencing: BUT, I see [6]:2 EIGHT TIMES in a row; please remove the first four and have one at para's end, and one after "game"—two should be enough, unless there's something contentious that needs marking. Then six 13s in a row. Please audit throughout. Tony(talk) 05:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still thinking about the deceptive dab.
"succession" done.
I don't know if they're allowed. I've asked at the FAC talk page.
I thought the latest trend was a ref for every sentence, but I guess not. ;-) I've cut down on the duplicated refs. I left the ones after quotes, and when the text switches from one ref to another, then back again. I can remove more if needed.
"(a visual barrier that allows dice rolls and other activities to be conducted without the players knowing the outcome)" and "(Wizards of the Coast periodically alters the rules of Dungeons & Dragons and releases a new version)" are not associated with any reference, I just added them in as explanations. I can add refs for them, or I can remove the ref right before them. Whatever people think is best. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "[6]:29" format is a good way to use citations to specific pages if a source contains content from multiple pages and there are only a few such sources (between, say, one and five, since then using Harvard refs would look weird for such a small number of different sources). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the deceptive piped link to "adventure module". Hopefully that works. The problem is that in the old days they were called "modules" and now their called "adventures" and sometimes "adventure modules". Hopefully the two word name will allow old, new, and non-gamers to understand the link. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked about using the {{rp} template for page numbers, and apparently its OK.[10] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A short article on a spy that nobody really knew about until 2007. 'Nuff said, read and learn! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a cursory copyedit, and it reads smoothly for the most part. One sentence I was scratching my head about for a while was this: "As Koval built a new life for himself in the Soviet Union, the FBI launched an investigation into his activities in the 1950s". Was the FBI investigating Koval's 1950s activities, or did the investigation take place in the 1950s? If the former, I suggest: "As Koval built a new life for himself in the Soviet Union, the FBI launched an investigation into his 1950s activities"; if the latter, there's a deeper problem because you've got "As" and "1950s" disharmoniously co-existing, and I'd suggest a complete change around: "In the 1950s, the FBI launched an investigation into Koval's activities, while he built a new life for himself in the Soviet Union" (or some such; it's still slightly awkward). —Anonymous DissidentTalk 17:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped part of the sentence entirely, as its dealt with in the earlier paragraph, and reworded. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Query Interesting well written story. No mention of his wife after his return, did she predecease him? Did they have kids? Also did he ever renounce his US citizenship?ϢereSpielChequers 05:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I did not find any sources that discussed those matters. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK well we can't add what we can't source, but thanks for checking. ϢereSpielChequers 08:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind having another look at your sources for the sentence "According to Arnold Kramish, an American colleague he befriended, it was there that Koval assumed deputy command of the local GRU station." Perhaps the reference has been updated, but I would read this as implying that Kramish knew about the GRU section structure from Koval, whilst the reference implies that he learned it from the FBI.
Also "While other spies such as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Klaus Fuchs were caught after the war, Koval apparently went unscrutinized for years. Among the reasons given for his maintained cover" implies that he maintained his cover after they had been caught, whilst the sources state that he had returned to Russia in 1948 - well before the other three were caught. ϢereSpielChequers 17:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked a mention in "later years". Kramish and everyone else didn't know anything originally, but he struck up a correspondence with Koval which is how he learned about the covert activities. As for the Rosenberg&Fuchs, there's not meant to be any connection besides that they were Soviet spies; it's just that in contrast to them being caught, Koval escaped and went uninvestigated for years. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them. I think that resolves my earlier query, but in Jan 1941 "a year's deferment from service starting February 1942." Reads to me as a two year deferment or did it end in Feb 42?ϢereSpielChequers 11:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "President Putin.." ref in the references is thesame as the current ref 1 (Kremlin.ru)? If so, it should probably be listed in the notes as "President Putin" since that's the first part of the reference. Makes it easier to find.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, milady, I'm confused. You mean "President Putin" as referred to in the article text? In other words make it out as "Putin" in the named ref rather than Kremlin. ru? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. The first footnote is presumably refering to the article in the references that's titled "President Vladimir Putin...". I'm just asking that they be consistently titled so that they are easy to find. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's just because {{cite web}} prioritizes the title if there's no author. I've tweaked it, thanks. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - for now. Fascinating stuff and well-written. Quibbles: Where we have "sites producing" in the Lead, how about "sites that produce" or "sites that produced"? Is a "debate team" what we call over here in the UK a "debating society"? WRT the Jewish Autonomous Region(s), I got a little confused. Presumably the one "established by Stalin" had nothing to do with the one mentioned in the sentence above, or did it? I think "cell" might be better than "station" here, it was there that Koval assumed deputy command of the local GRU station. And, here, his motivation for leaving might have been because American counter-intelligence agents had discovered Soviet literature about his parents— why not just write "he might have left because..."? Lastly, I cannot see where the Doyle reference is used in the text. Graham ColmTalk 17:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some auxiliary Doyle citations, I forgot to add them in a while back with another edit, I guess... only a byte or two change. I've implemented your recommended changes, and cut out Stalin entirely and move the wikilink so it's clear the regions are the same... better? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I don't envisage any problems with the image, so I a pleased to added my support. Graham ColmTalk 18:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - The sole image looks perfectly fine. NW(Talk) 04:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SteveT • C Looks good overall. I come bearing a list, but it's all quite minor:
Lead
"After the war, Koval left on a European vacation and never returned to the United States."—sounds like he left on a genuine holiday, rather than its being a ruse so he could get out of the country.
Early life
"The carpenter settled in Sioux City ..."—who, Jesus? :p At this point, saying "the carpenter" as a way of avoiding a second use of "Abram Koval" doesn't quite work, as his profession hasn’t been established at this point. Sure, it's implied, but the word still strikes up enough of a query that it interferes with the flow. Fowler: "The effect is to set readers wondering what the significance of the change is, only to conclude there is none."
"were profiled by an American Communist daily in New York City"—ambiguous; the meaning of "daily" (as in newspaper) only becomes clear in the next sentence with the mention of the journalist.
"While Isaya became a champion tractor driver..."—a champion tractor driver? Can you confirm?
The source says he became a "champion tractor driver". Not being in the ultra-competitive Soviet heavy farm machinery circuit, I have no idea what that entails beyond that. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recruitment and espionage
"Later, Koval was recruited by the Soviet Main Intelligence Directorate"—a pity the section has to start out without a scene-setting date. I presume that even an approximate date isn't known? Would the sources stretch to saying "Between 193[n] and 1939, Koval..."?
unfortunately it would. The exact dates, or even a year range, is never specified. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"According to Arnold Kramish, an American colleague he befriended, and who contacted him over half a century later in 2000 and started corresponding, it was there that Koval assumed deputy command of the local GRU cell."—the mid-sentence digression is ungainly, makes the sentence too long and obscures its focus. Perhaps we can cull some of that without losing the intended meaning: "According to Arnold Kramish, an American colleague he befriended and with whom he re-established contact in 2000, it was there that Koval assumed deputy command of the local GRU cell."
"Eventually, Koval managed to obtain a teaching job there, where students laughed at his foreign pronunciations for technical terms."—seems to focus too much on the students' finding his pronunciations amusing, as if that's all that happened there, the teaching is considered almost an afterthought. Perhaps find some way of de-emphasising?
I removed the "where" bit and replaced it with a semi colon to try and break it up, is that a bit better? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ELLIPSES is a little unclear on what should be done with the last sentence. Spaced, as the guideline seems to recommend, looks very strange.
I made some minor changes; see the intermediate edit summaries for the rationales for each. Otherwise, a nice article on an interesting subject. All the best, SteveT • C 22:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the top one. :-) Oh, and "On November 3, 2007, he received his last award"—wondering what "last" is doing there, as there were no previous awards. SteveT • C 07:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the award bit, and reworded the first one ever so slightly. Better? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not a lot more to say than that. :-) The prose is fine, the image correctly licensed and the article as seemingly comprehensive as it can be for the subject. The minor concerns I listed above have been dealt with speedily too. Nice work, SteveT • C 23:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support but with comments - 1. 'This group, organized by American Jewish Communists in 1924, supported through money and publicity the development of the "Jewish Autonomous Region"' There is no verb. Put a "was" before "supported" and it can be a sentence. 2. Quote in the middle of the paragraph beginning "The Koval family" needs a citation directly following the quote per MoS. 3. "Though the United States was still neutral in World War II," Should be "during the beginning of World War II". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I implemented your other tweaks, but I'm pretty sure #1 is a sentence: "This group [...] supported [...] the development of the JAR." If it's a bit wordy I can try chunking it out. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Supported through" makes it not a verb. See: "I am supported". The verb is "to be" (i.e. "am"). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But then it reads "This group, organized by American Jewish Communists in 1924, was supported through money and publicity the development of the "Jewish Autonomous Region"—the Communist answer to the Palestine project then being undertaken by the Zionism movement"... it doesn't sound like "the development..." and what comes after it makes any sense with "was". --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steve seems to have fixed it. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets all FA criteria. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the images have alt text, but the alt text needs work. The currently alt text is just a copy of the captions. But alt text has a different function from the caption, and typically the alt text and caption should overlap little, if at all. Please see WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples and then give it another go.Eubulides (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've improved them properly now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much better, but still needs work. The alt text too often give details like "Hurricane Georges" or "Chandelur Islands" that cannot be verified merely by looking at the image (unless you are an expert). An ordinary reader won't look at the Chandelur Islands photo and say "that looks like the Chandelur Islands". I reworded the first few; can you please reword the last two? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I came back to see that the alt text problems were still present, and fixed them as best I could. Eubulides (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why are the damages and deaths repeated twice in the lead, in the first sentence of each paragraph? Also, for the images in the Impact section, can you find a way (might involve playing around with the template itself), to use {{Double image stack}} as used in Raymore Drive? The way those two small images are positioned looks awkward. I'll probably add more comments, as I'm combing the article over to use it as a model for writing an effects article myself. Maxim(talk) 12:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the double image link, I didn't know that existed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the prose needs more work. The year of the hurricane needs to be specfied at the beginning of the article (not just in the infobox); in the Preparations section third paragraph there are multiple repetitions of evacuate/evacuated/evacuation – nine in all; "Record-breaking" needs a hyphen; "declared disaster declarations" is not good prose. These are examples of points needing attention; in addition there are numerous no-break space omissions throughout the article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done these examples. Will try to copyedit the article more thoroughly tomorrow. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedited the entire article. I'll proofread it tomorrow. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments: Most of my earlier concerns have been addressed. I have since had the chance to read the article through, which has brought to light several more (manly prose) points:-
"On September 16, the depression was upgraded into Tropical Storm Georges and further into Hurricane Georges the next day." The word "further" is disruptive and unnecessary. Also, "into" rather than "to"? My preferred version would be: "On September 16, the depression was upgraded to Tropical Storm Georges, and to Hurricane Georges the next day." Also, shouldn't Tropical Storm Georges be wikilinked?
Done and it doesn't have to be linked since the article is linked in the lead and there is a {{Main article|Hurricane Georges}} in that section Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my ignorance, but what time was "1500 UTC". I've never heard of UTC, and the link hasn't made me any wiser.
Coordinated Universal Time is the standard time unit for world events, the time zone it is centered around is the Grand Meridian. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The number of "evacuate/evacuations" in paragraph 3 of Preparations has been reduced from 9 to 6, but the repetition still jars. Because hurricane articles all tend to use the same terminology, it is important where possible to vary the language. Here, the first "evacuated from" could be replaced by "left". Likewise, Grand Isle's 1,500 residents could be ordered to "leave", and the large-scale evacuations could be described as "population movements". Please consider.
"were confined", followed by "having been concentrated" is ungrammatical. The sentence makes perfect sense without "having been".
"A lighthouse located on the islands prior to Georges was partially submerged in the Gulf of Mexico, nearly 1,200 feet (370 m) from land." The wording is unclear. Does this mean that a lighthouse was bodily picked up and hurled 1,200 feet into the Gulf, or that the waters of the Gulf covered the island on which it was standing, leaving it 1,200 feet from land? We need a clearer picture of what happened.
It's not clear where the 80,000 "residences" that lost power were located. The previous sentence begins "In Orleans Parish..." – were all 80,000 there?
I don't want to be funny, but "...medical conditions complicated by an evacuation" sounds, well, medical (and unpleasant). Could you rephrase to "medical conditions aggravated by the stress of the evacuation" or something similar?
"Including relief funds to Puerto Rico and Mississippi in association with Georges..." Awkward wording: try "associated with" or "arising from", rather than "in association with"
Is it possible to give a bit more information about the various costings referred to in the lead and Aftermath sections (both saying much the same thing at present)? For example, what does "paid losses" mean? $56 million was raised in relief funds - how was it raised, and who got it? What is the relationship of these relief figures to the $30.1 million estimated cost of damage?
My earlier comment about no-break spaces has not been addressed.
Otherwise, a tidy enough piece of hurricania. Brianboulton (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source check Ealdgyth. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the lead doesn't really summarize the article per WP:LEAD. The first half is dedicated to information that more or less rehashes the Background section, but it doesn't tell me anything about the topic of the article. I'd prefer to see a sentence or two of the background, and the rest of the lead summarizing the meat of the article. --Andy Walsh(talk) 20:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anything else you want added into it? I'm just being on the cautious side since it's a short article and I don't want to put too much into the lead Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support.
Pleased with the writing. In view of the clarifications and changes at MoS concerning those dreadful unsized thumbnails, will you consider upsizing a few of the pics? There's interesting detail (potentially) in the satellite shot of the hurricane; but it's wasted in such a small pic, and all the hurricane article pics like that seem to be the same at that size. I can't make out much detail in the differences pics. Can they not be left–right adjacent to the rainfall chart? Already the text is a little squeezed down the middle, and bigger pics will require a reshuffling of locations. Tony(talk) 12:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed the image size issue. On my computer, the images appear fine, I'm not sure what's happening with other computers. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, my issue with the lead was resolved. Prose looks good. --Andy Walsh(talk) 19:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I rarely support off the bat, but I made the necessary tweaks (please check) myself instead of listing them here; the article is quite good (and relatively interesting for a tropical cyclone). One question: "for the Ascension, Assumption, Jefferson, Lafourche, Livingston, Plaquemines, Orleans, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, and St. John the Baptist St. Tammany, Terrebone, Tangipahoa, and Washington Parishes." What's that first "and" for?Dabomb87 (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was just a listing error on my part. I've fixed it, thanks for the corrections and support. Same goes to Tony1 and Laser brain Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No image review? Text squeeze between images in "Impact" section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with comments (please fix these first with emphasis on number 4 being absolutely necessary for FA status) - 1. I tried to check some sources and I got stuck behind having to sign up for stuff, so, I will AGF. 2. The last sentence of the 1st paragraph of the lead seems off - I would suggest: 'After nearly 1.5 million people were urged to evacuate coastal areas, officials described the evacuation as "probably the largest [...] we have ever achieved".[1]' 3. The semi-colon in the second paragraph seems off. Semi-colons connect two sentences that are thematically connected but there is little grammatical cohesion to warrant a semi-colon. 4. The image is against the main template in the "Background" section in violation of WP:ACCESS. Please move the image to below the template. 5. You never say who Mayer Morial is. 6. In "Impact" you use "impacts" as a noun, which seems inappropriate. You could switch to "damage", "destruction", or something similar. 7. The phrase "nearly 1,200 feet..." doesn't work with the sentence. You don't say which islands either. You could start the section dealing with the islands saying "The Chandelur Islands were nearly 1,200 feet..." then follow that with the lighthouse and other sentences. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the text per suggestions for your first three comments, as for the image comment, there has never been an issue with having a storm track near the infobox template in any other FAC, I'm not sure what makes this any different. Points five and six addressed. As for the last point, it's not talking about any of the islands being 1,200 feet out, it's referring to the lighthouse that was isolated from land. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On point 4, Ottava was referring to the fact that the image preceded the {{main article}} template in the section order when it should be the other way around. I fixed that. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, that makes much more sense, thanks for taking care of it :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for a sentence to clarify "the islands" in "A lighthouse on the islands". "the" is used to specify a specific set of islands. It would be helpful to instead put a name of which islands. If there isn't a name, then use "on a set of islands" or "on some islands". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that removes the confusion. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images are all free, appear to have proper attribution, and appear fine. However, I would recommend that File:Georges1998rain.gif enlarged on this page as at 180px (the fixed size used in the page), the text on the image is unreadable. It's better at 300px (and per recent FAC/MOS discussion, images do not have to be thumb size but should stay under 400px). --MASEM (t) 17:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to 300px, thanks for the image review Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because it's about a fascinating subject, has reached Good article standard, and is timely in relation to the approaching 150th anniversary of publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species... dave souza, talk 10:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Supplement: please note that Fertilisation of Orchids was Darwin's first book after On the Origin of Species, and the first time he demonstrated the usefulness for research and the explanatory power of his theory of natural selection. . . dave souza, talk 23:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restart, old nom. Alt text is clear; unclear if sources and image concerns have been resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jappalang (talk·contribs) is a good one to verify that images are in compliance (or Awadewit (talk·contribs)), and I didn't see that Ealdgyth (talk·contribs) had done a source check, so you might ping her. I noted in edit summary an inconsistent citation style between notes and references: publishers should be separated from title in notes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, have dropped a line to Jappalang, and implemented the corrections to citation style. Many thanks for helping with that, dave souza, talk 00:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that the image issues have been resolved. Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I had a review and wanted to support before, but things suddenly changed and, well, I lost my chance. Anyway, I just have a few suggestions. 1. The image "Musk orchids in grassland" should be moved to the second paragraph of "Insect fertilisation of plants". I say this because of the formatting problems that happen with the header along with musk orchids being discussed in that area. 2. "After On the Origin of Species was published Darwin " Please put a comma after "published". The "aft" would denote a clause that is explanatory but unessential to the statement in the next clause (the one starting "Darwin"). The next comma, "editions, as", is unnecessary as it is logically part of the same clause and would not be separated (i.e. Darwin didn't do one, then something else happened. Instead, Darwin did 1 and 2 with the mutual verbal phrase "became involved"). 3. "During 1861 botany" Please put a comma before "botany". See "2" and also - this could be read as "1861 botany", as if there would be such a thing. :) 4. Please move the image "Catasetum macrocarpum" down a paragraph. It levels against a blockquote directly above and the formatting seems off. 5. In "British orchids", the section beginning "While the bee orchid showed adaptation for self-fertilisation" could be separated into its own section. The second image could be moved left and to the front of this paragraph to keep the two images from running into each other and giving a small break in the paragraph for readability. 6. If you move that image as suggested, you could move "Catasetum saccatum " to the top and to the right of that section and further remove the formatting problem. 7. At the end of "Further research by Darwin", you have a quote followed by a blockquote. I am unsure about this. Are the two connected? Is one quoting the other? Is there some way you can denote this so it wont be as confusing? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - My opinion on the primary sources is as follows - The work is a scientific book. Regardless if it was later proven wrong or challenged in any form, it was created as a work of science and has the rigor of a scientific work. The primary sourcing is necessary to explain the ideas behind the science. This is not the equivalent of a plot section, as a plot is mostly summary about opinion, instead of a rigorous scientific discovery that is argued. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and suggestions, I like the grammatical changes and some of the image moves work well for me. Not too sure about the position of the pencils with pollen masses: see how that looks for you. dave souza, talk 00:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting the paragraph some and moving the image does help with the readability. The changes are much more aesthetically pleasing and really help. The little details do matter a lot. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per my comment on the previous nomination. It is a very nice piece that meets the FA criteria and is very informative. I particularly enjoyed the backcround and botany as recreation sections give a great feel for how natural history was done in the Victorian era with informal correspondance networks and leading naturalists putting notices in popular journals to solicit readers to submit their observations on a topic. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All my concerns have been met except 1 that was debatable. The article has made it clear that the book, although known only to specialists, has been important and influential, and a worthy complement to Origin of Species. I hope to see it on the main page before the end of 2009. --Philcha (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as in previous nom. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can the punctuation on this sentence be improved?
He explained the mechanism by which it fired its sticky pollen mass at an insect that touched an "antenna" on the flower, referring to experiments imitating its action using a whalebone spring.
Comma followed by a dash: is that the punctuation in the cited source?
flower is due to a long course of slow modification,—each modification having been
In my examination of Orchids, hardly any fact has so much struck me as the endless diversity of structure,—the prodigality of resources,—for gaining the
This is my first attempt at the FA process, so any help would be greatly appreciated. The article has been greatly improved from its GAN a while back and I believe this meets the FA criteria. It recently underwent a peer review and seeing there are no FA's on Australian Football League topics it would be great to base other AFL articles on this one. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks.Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.Eubulides (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brief comment: I assisted in the peer review process, and agree that the article has improved markedly from its GAN format. I would love to see this make FA as the first AFL article. One thing I've noticed, however, which I obviously missed at PR: the final paragraph of the lead is a bit too detailed in regard to Selwood's commercial activities, and contains rather more information on this topic than is within the main article. The opposite should be the case, with the lead briefly summarising the article's detailed contents. I wonder if some transfer of material could be made to remedy this? Subject to this, plus a final read-through and validation of images and sources, I'd say the article looks strong, and I'd be happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry it wasn't there when you did the PR. I've started trimming it down. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've restored the old revision and tweaked those areas. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've just noticed that a couple of dablinks need fixing, and there's one dead link. Brianboulton (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Link seems to have perished today. I'll look for another. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a while although it seems as if "Selwood has stated his career intention to work really hard on the basics. Despite admitting not (being) the fastest player, or most skillful", will have to be removed as I can't find another source. Hopefully something will pop up or the link starts to work again. Maybe another AFL fan with a book might have something. I've also emailed the Bendigo Advertiser but I'm not expecting a reply or anything to happen. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the two dablinks as they don't have a relevant articles on wikipedia. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If The Advertiser story also appeared in the print edition, and not just online, then there's no need to remove it as a source; the url is just a courtesy link in that case. SteveT • C 19:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joel was forced to wear splints on his leg to help overcome a walking disability.[3] - You have linked the incorrect article at shin splints, please check that.
Thanks, Ceranthor, I'll have a look through. Aaroncrick (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Selwood displayed his talents as an athlete from an early age. - displayed talent...
and had kicked three goals as a half forward.[3] - I might be wrong, but shouldn't it be scored three goals?
I would like to keep this as is rare that Selwood every plays half-foward. The only positions I've really ever seen him play are midfield positions. Aaroncrick (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I now think it's non notable as he was only 8. I removed it. Aaroncrick (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Selwood played his junior football with the Sandhurst Football Club - remove his
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Link died yesterday unfortunately. Aaroncrick (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the link as it moved to a new page. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I removed the links altogether.... Aaroncrick (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I did so. Mustn't have saved properly, removed now in any case. Aaroncrick (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
swaps between using his first name or surname in the article specifically in the section Early Life
Removed use of first name within article body, and replaced with surname for consistency. Boomtish (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honours section - Other Achievements are these really notable achievements, unlike the other two subsection this list doesnt indicate when the achievement occurred.
I would argue yes, they are. These achievements are notable historical achievements. They are not merely season relevant, but achievements on a larger scale (the Australian Football League's history etc). Boomtish (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Youngest premiership player since 1993 (19 years, 126 days) realy this more a commentator line rather than an achievement, also none of the ones in this list say when it occured . Gnangarra 15:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since removed the premiership achievement, and date-stamped others. Boomtish (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This two points are items that stand out and need to/can be addressed. What really hits as an issue is that Selwood is only 21yrs old playing in his third season for a total of just 61 games, just starting out as a player. Is this really going to be a stable article that we can tag as our best work, will it not be back at WP:FAR in 2 months? All things being normal this person has at least 7 years of his playing career to go though more likely it'll exceed 10 years, during that time he'll add another 200 possibly even as many 300 games. Gnangarra 05:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair point, there are obviously going to be additional edits made still. But I would argue that this hurdle didn't stop other articles from being presented with FA status. See Karmichael Hunt and Kevin Pieterson articles; both are similarly young athletes with the majority of their career still in front of them. Boomtish (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The stability criterion relates more to edit wars than to updates that are required over time. Are no active athletes/singers/movie stars/politicians to even be considered at FAC? I remember John McCain passing FAC last year, in the months before the election. If that can become featured, surely an article on an athlete is a viable candidate. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Actually, I believe Aaron was here once before, with a stadium article that had some problems and wound up failing. Nice to see the nominator back at FAC. I assume you've been working with Boomtish, the nominator at the first Selwood FAC?
Your infact right. Forgot all about that, good memory! :) I don't think I was too familiar with FAC/FAR processes back then. Aaroncrick (talk)
The first sentence of the lead's third paragraph feels like it's jamming too much into a single sentence. Either chop it or add
"and" before "becoming" to simply improve the flow.
Early life: "with his performances in the championship games earning him end-of-year All-Australian honours and the Most Valuable Player award for Victoria Country." The with+-ing sentence structure is often clumsy, and the sentence is overlong to begin with. Again, I recommend chopping it in two.
"in the annual under under-18s International Rules Series in Ireland." Are the two "under"s both supposed to be here?
"However, a knee injury occured only six rounds into the competition forced him to undergo surgery". Lacking a "that" after "competition"; "which" also works.
Done. Changed to "forcing", is that ok? Aaroncrick (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFL career: What is the home and away period? Is that supposed to mean the regular season?
Yes, that's what It means. I'll change that so it's easier for non AFL followers. Aaroncrick (talk)
"with former Brisbane coach Leigh Matthews noting...". Another awkward structure.
From the beginning, Selwood showed an ability to influence games," Comma after this should be a semi-colon. It may seem picky, but proper punctuation is a vital part of compelling prose.
What is a disposal? A link should be provided for jargon like this. Also, the tackle link could be moved up.
A disposal is the same as a possession. There is no current article, but I may be able to scratch up a stub. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Coaching staff had a highlights package made of this performance". Should it be "The Geelong coaching staff..."?
A couple of these may have to do with my lack of AFL knowledge, but I'll have to come back for another round later. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone once told me that references should be placed inside dashes, not outside as is done normally with citations. Even though I don't understand why dashes should be treated differently from other punctuation marks, the Manual of Style should still be followed in featured articles.
Found one section where this is relevant, and fixed it. Reference is now inside the dash. Boomtish (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Punctuation fix needed after "Club champion award".
2008: "Selwood also polled 19 votes in the Brownlow Medal". Sounds like a person is polling votes in a prize, instead of a vote count. Is this used often in Australia? There are a couple of other similar sentences before and after this one.
I belive the term "polling" is used regularly in regards to these awards. Nonetheless, made some adjustments. Let me know if this is better. Boomtish (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"citing 'club success and future opportunities' as his reason for accepting the reduced salary." That's actually two reasons, not one.
Check capitalization of Organisation and Seeing Eye Dogs (not the one in the charity name). Also grammar fix needed for "who are being trained as a Seeing Eye Dogs".
Period after "childhood friends". How two nominators and a great copy-editor missed that one, I will never know, but it needs fixing to make for a professional look. These errors cause me the most concern, as they always leave me wondering if I missed something elsewhere.
Minor slip-up, but fixed. Boomtish (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Single-page references should be presented as p. and not pp.
Personally, I don't think Selwood's first name is needed in the last two photo captions. The one in the infobox is fine for identification purposes, but it's a bit much to have them in all three. Also, I keep hearing that names shouldn't be in alt text, although I'm no expert on the subject.Giants2008 (17–14) 00:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed use of first name in captions. Also removed use of name in alt text and replaced with "young male athlete". Boomtish (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - The three images in the article looked good, though one had to be moved to commons. I have done that for you, but could you take care of it next time? Thanks :) NW(Talk) 15:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some readers might be irritated to find that "inside" and "outside" (both epithets separately linked) go to the same place. Perhaps make it a single link of three words?
"currently holds"—violates the MoS "vague chronological terms" guidelines, I think it is. "As of 2009"? This should also do for the claim at the end of that sentence.
I don't mind "kicked three goals" (someone above had qualms).
I don't think this was changed in the end. Boomtish (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't consider swapping the "leaves the ground" pic with the one in the infobox? I think the former is better, without the effects of the mouthguard. Or perhaps it's too narrow for an infobox ...
"instant success" as a pipe for "child prodigy"? Both the linked article and the pipe are inappropriate, I think.
"resulted in him becoming"—the old noun +-ing issue. Consider "his becoming"; and, oh look, the last exercise seems to have exactly this wording. And hyphen for "first-year player". Some would hyphenate "debut-year achievements", but I could live without that hyphen if you're more comfortable without it.
I've recast the "not (being) the ..." quote. Square brackets were required, anyway. Tony(talk) 11:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS Any reason the piped years are italicised in the table? Straighter, easier-to-read, more authoritative as plain roman face, I think. Tony(talk) 11:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and fixed the table issues. Boomtish (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: My comments at the start of this review have been adequately answered, and there have been some useful tweaks since. I think the article now meets the FA criteria. I've been following it since the early stages of its peer review, and it has developed wonderfully well – and given me some insight into the mysterious lingo of Australian football. It's always good to see the FA range expanding, so I really hope this makes it. Brianboulton (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, however, why are only the initials displayed in the notes? That seems odd. Also, I think the wording about winning a premiership medal can be confusing and roundabout, as people may not know that only people who play in the grand final get one, whereas the guy might win the Brownlow and kick the most goals and then break their leg in the second last match and not get a medal. I think Tony Modra was teh top goal kicker for the crows in one year and got injured in the prelim f and didn't get a medal when they won the final. It's easier to simply say "youngest person to play in a grand final winning team" or seomthing YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – There were a few issues remaining after my review, which I fixed myself to expedite things. The article has seen substantial improvements since the previous FAC and looks FA-worthy now. Be sure to keep it up-to-date as his career progresses. Giants2008 (17–14) 03:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe this article on one of Greater Manchester's mill towns complies with the FA criteria. It is comprehensive, well sourced, and – having recently undergone a copyedit – hopefully well written. Thanks in advance to those who take the time to review the article. Nev1 (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Images need all have good alt text as per WP:ALT. Thanks! Eubulides (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the images have alt text, except the one in the infobox, which needs an update to be made to {{Infobox UK place}}.[16] --MalleusFatuorum 23:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All images have alt text. The only one which might not work is the image in the infobox. The infobox is currently being upgraded to alt text and should be working soon; I've tried to add a workaround, but I'm not sure if it will work. Nev1 (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)This is being worked on. It's in a queue for other upgrades to be made to the template, so I would hope reviewers can temporarily WP:IAR whilst it is implimented over the next few weeks. :) --Jza84 | Talk 23:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I looked at the first one, saw it lacked it, and assumed the rest lacked it. Thanks for doing all that alt text: it's really good. My sincere apologies for the false alarm; I must try to be more careful. I'll mark off this part of the discussion with hat/hab to avoid distraction.
Query - Sorry if this is an odd question, but are you the author of Nevell works used to write the article? --Laser brain(talk) 18:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not an odd question at all, and no I am not. Nev1 (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - this is good, and I'm leaning toward support. Some fit and finish is needed, as follows:
"it was probably used as an administrative boundary and dates from the 8th or 9th centuries" 8th or 9th "century" OK?
"Ashton Old Hall was a manor house and the seat of the Assheton family, the administrative centre of the manor." Strangely worded—to me, it reads like the family was the administrative centre, but you presumably mean the Hall.
"The manor remained in the hands of the Ashton family until 1514 ..." Until now you've been referring to them as "Assheton" and haven't explained the leap to "Ashton".
"Domestic fustian and woollen weaving has ..." I would have used "have", unless I am misreading the sentence.
"There was a cholera outbreak in Ashton-under-Lyne in 1832, caused by a poor supply of fresh water and dwellings without adequate drainage." Switch this around to make active and avoid the awkward "there was": "A poor supply of fresh water and dwellings without adequate drainage caused a cholera outbreak in Ashton-under-Lyne in 1832."
That compass table is awful... 4 different fonts including the header? And why the period after the header?
Please check all instances where you begin a sentence with "In <year>". Some have commas, some don't. I fixed a couple but there may be more.
"Ashton Market Hall has undergone a £15M restoration ..." Why not just AMH "underwent"?
GCSE...? Spell out acronyms the first time they're used, and only include the abbreviation if re-used.
Nev1 and I have made edits to this effect as shown in this diff. --Jza84 | Talk 21:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've dealt with everything apart from the compass table, and there's not much we can do about that as it's a template (the alternative template isn't any better IMO). Nev1 (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if an upgrade was made avaliable, but I suppose that's a matter outside of this FAC. --Jza84 | Talk 23:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current refs 125 and 125 (Eve Dougdale) and (Adam Derbyshire) are lacking publisher information
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the publisher field for refs 125 and 126 (there was a typo so the field didn't appear); all are now using template:citation; and I've sorted out sources 3 and 51 as suggested. [17] I've not got a page number for the gazetteer though, so the reference looks a bit odd. I've replaced runtrackdir.com with the sports club's website. Nev1 (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, sorry it took me a while to get back here but I believe it is up to standard now. --Andy Walsh(talk) 16:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support and comments Article is comprehensive and up to standard. I made one tiny edit to remove a repetition of "around".
or else to Ashton's proximity to the Pennines not clear to me how this relates to "under Lyne" and the ref is opaque. Can you clarify the link, if any, between "Pennines" and "Lyne"
A bit of a tendency to the passive voice, which I particularly noticed in the "History" section, was founded occurs a bit too often, and, as an example, the Oxford Mills bit would read better in active voice
Some images have forced image sizes. it looks as if that's a conscious decision, but I'd welcome reassurance that it's not just a breach of MoS
I believe the "under-Lyne" was (or perhaps still is) something to do with being 'under the line' of the Pennines, or even (so I once read) 'under the line' of Lancashire's county boundary with Yorkshire. Shouldn't be hard to clarify. --Jza84 | Talk 15:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The three images with a fixed size are done so because the details are difficult to make out at smaller resolutions. I suppose it's not essential that the Portland Basin and town hall pictures are large, but the image under the geography section does need to be as at the default 180px you can't see the town. A few instances of passive voice have been changed to active and I think Casliber has changed a couple. As for "under-Lyne", Wilson doesn't explicitly state why the town's proximity to the Pennines leads to "under-Lyne", however Jza84's explanation is the likely implication. Nev1 (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed, so I've struck the comment header. I'm happy with the picture size, just wanted confirmation that it was a deliberate choice rather than an oversight Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - I'll begin a lookover and might massage prose I find, please revert if I inadvertently change any meaning. I will note queries below nice to fix those below but neither are deal-breakers: Casliber (talk·contribs) 09:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "under-Lyne" facet --> suffix? (more exact?)
In the 19th century, Ashton-under-Lyne was hailed as a "new Jerusalem" by John Wroe. - this leaves me hanging and wondering why. Even a single sentence would be helpful.
I've changed facet to suffix as it sounds better, it's the word I was searching for when I originally wrote the sentence but couldn't put my finger on. Also, I've clarified that Wroe tried to turn Ashton-under-Lyne into a "new Jerusalem" rather than proclaimed it as such for any property it possessed before he arrived. Nev1 (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Thanks for the copy edit, everything seems fine. Nev1 (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
When you calculate the percentage change (table within the Population change section) you should divide the difference by the old number not the new one. --Jpeeling (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Damn. Thanks for finding that, I've now fixed it. Nev1 (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image licensing comments
File:Ashton-under-Lyne old hall.jpg; the tag gives multiple ways it can be freely used, but it's not really specified in the description when the image was first published, merely a date I would assume to be the year of capture. Was the image previously published before the cutoff date, or was it never published before then? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The photograph was taken before 1890 (as that's when the building was demolished), so my understanding was that it comes under "A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1939". As for publication date, the book it's taken from doesn't give details of first publication. There is a date of 1931 handwritten below the image (which I cropped out for wikipedia) but I'm not sure what it relates to. Nev1 (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks pretty good overall, but I do see glitches in the prose. Here are examples.
"resulting in it being granted honorific borough status in 1847." Ungainly and probably ungrammatical. See noun plus -ing. "resulting in the granting of"?
US units and metric units seem to swap places as main/converted at the bottom of the lead. Looks like a case for km/miles at the top.
Numerals or spelling out for centuries? Both appear.
"probably became a settlement sometime after the"—not "sometimes", but two words, I think.
"when it became useful as a means of distinguishing the town from"—"useful for distinguishing"?
"Afterwards the effigy would be hung up and shot and then set on fire."—Neater as "Afterwards the effigy would be hung up, shot, and set on fire."?
"The first recorded occurrence of the tradition is in 1795"; present tense? And do traditions occur? What about "The first record of the tradition was in 1795. The ritual may be even older, and continued into ..."? I've avoided the repetition of "tradition", too.
"The manor remained in the hands of the Ashton family – whose name had changed from Assheton over time – until 1514 when the line ended"—I was uncomfortable with the "over time" bit. Isn't a name change instant? If parts of the family did and parts didn't, perhaps "during the second half of the 15th century", or something like that?
"large-scale" hyphenated as an adjective.
centred around? Do you mean it was at the intersection of? Unsure.
MoS on chronological vagueness: "(today about £600,000 and £60,000 respectively)"—I think "as of 2009" is better.
"A poor supply of fresh water and dwellings without adequate drainage led to a cholera outbreak in the town.[42] "—When? The decade or year or year-range?
Does "secondary industry" carry a technical sense? Primary is agriculture? Unsure. "Coal mining was a secondary industry in the town compared to the textile industry ...". Was second in employment and output to the textile industry"?
That's down to but not including "Governance". Perhaps a look through by word-nerd colleagues? Tony(talk) 08:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus has addressed most of the comments you made intends to scrutinise the article further. As for the other comments, I've added the year of the cholera outbreak and clarified that the evidence comes from Ashton Moss as "centred around" is a bit vague. Looking at the source again for information about the Assheton family, apparently the name did not change (the reason a vague phrase such as "over time" was used was because I couldn't find a date... mainly because one didn't exist) and I had mixed up the name of the family and manor; I did not twig as it was not uncommon for names of places or people to change. Regarding "secondary industry", you are right that it does have a specific meaning so I've removed the term and clarified that coal was not as important as textiles [18]. Nev1 (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): – PeeJay 20:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it would be impossible to expand this article any further unless new information were to come to light. I believe that this article meets all of the Featured Article criteria and that the only thing it is missing is a photograph of the site as it exists now, which I should be able to obtain by the time this nomination is complete. Opinions are welcomed and encouraged. – PeeJay 20:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport from Cliftonian (talk·contribs) – looks good generally, just a few points that need clearing up:
"It was the first home of Manchester United F.C." – I'd expand this to "Manchester United Football Club".
Done
"The ground was originally just a pitch, around which an estimated 12,000 spectators could congregate, but the addition of stands by the club in 1891 increased the capacity to around 15,000. However, the football club split from the railway company by whom they were run and, without the company's financial support, they were unable to afford the rent on the ground and were evicted." – This whole paragraph is very clunky and awkward, I'd be happier if it was re-written.
Wording seems fine to me. Could you perhaps suggest alternative wording that with which you would be happier?
The aspect which seems weakest to me is the first line – "The ground was originally just a pitch". Doesn't sound very good to me – perhaps "Originally, the ground consisted only of the pitch, around which an estimated 12,000 spectators could congregate. On the club's addition of stands in 1891 the capacity was increased to around 15,000." The rest is fine. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Instead, they had to change at a pub – The Three Crowns – a few hundred yards away on Oldham Road." – A bit too stop-and-start for my taste – try "Instead, they had to change at The Three Crowns public house a few hundred yards away on Oldham Road."
Done
"Fortunately, the club's management had been seeking a new stadium ever since the first attempted eviction in May 1892," – "Fortunately"? I wouldn't use this word in an encyclopaedic article.
I've removed "fortunately".
"the site now serves as the location of the North Manchester Business Park, and before that it was Moston Brook High School." – chronology all wrong. It should be "the site served as the location of Moston Brook High School, before becoming North Manchester Business Park in *date*.
Done, with some extra additions
"A red plaque could once be found attached to one of the school's walls" – when?
Cheers for the comments, mate. Glad you liked the article for the most part. Nevertheless, if you could suggest alternative wording for the passage you commented on above, that'd be very helpful. – PeeJay 19:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. I'm happy enough with it now, that paragraph still irks me a bit but it doesn't stop me changing my stance above. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Cliftonian. I have changed the paragraph like you suggested. Your version certainly reads better than mine did. I seem to have a penchant for sentences with lots of clauses! – PeeJay 00:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now transferred that image to Commons. Thanks very much for doing that for me, FN. Hope you'll support the article's promotion. – PeeJay 00:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To eliminate watermarks from that site browse it with firefox, with the Adblock Plus add-in. Then just block the watermark from that site, before screencapping. Nothing wrong with doing that, after all its the watermark that carries the copyright, not the map. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport
"Unable to afford the increased rent, especially as the Manchester Deans and Canons felt it inappropriate for the club to charge admission to the ground, the Heathens were served with an eviction notice in June 1893."
I know that the Heathens was a nickname of the club. But anyone reading the article who was unaware of this fact might assume that the religious organization evicted them partly on religious grounds. You might want to change the sentence a bit or explain that it was a nickname. Might also want to say what the organization felt about Newton Heath's nickname, if it is known.--EchetusXe (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've italicised "Heathens" to highlight the fact that this is a nickname. Do you think that, in conjunction with the fact that "Heathens" is spelled with a capital H, this will be enough? – PeeJay 09:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. Unless anyone else thinks it is not enough?--EchetusXe (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A small, detailed article with solid prose. Excellent work. My scans could not detect any defects. ceranthor 21:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This comment makes me extremely proud of this article. Goes to show that not all Featured Articles have to be tens of thousands of kilobytes in size! – PeeJay 21:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the article is extremely short, though. If promoted, it would likely be the second shortest FA. This shortness might be from a lack of comprehensiveness, but I do not have the knowledge in the area to research. ceranthor 17:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: 789 words of readable prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article's sole top-level section is "History". If other sources are found, consider adding at least one more for the stadium's structure. It mentions that the stadium eventually got grandstands; any data on the surface area or dimensions of the stadium, or the height of the stands? Seating arrangements? Popularity and revenues over time? I know it's tough to source those things, but criteria 1b is very demanding and I've received concerns about sales data in an unrelated good article nom. Try to find library support or other sources (including pay databases) if at all possible.
I've added a short section on the ground's history as a cricket field, but it is very short. A section on record attendances has also been added. I will try to add a section on the ground's "structure and facilities" per the Old Trafford article, but there's not much that could be said there that hasn't already been said in the History section.
Nice work on the attendance figures. It's clear now that it brought the crowds even so long ago!
How is ref 11 reliable? Not much author, editor, or fact-checking mentions there at all, looks blog-ish. I'm not even sure that it says a school was opened at that site.
Yes, you're probably right about that. The Gary James reference was intended to show that the school was erected on the same site, but that's obviously not clear, and I'll try to find a reference for the closure of the school.
I see. It looks ok now.
Article, ref dates, formatting, dabs, and links look good otherwise. --anoddname 00:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, AON. I'll get to work on adding as much as I can. – PeeJay 16:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; I replied above. --anoddname 23:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Redundancy: "They attempted to take the two grandstands with them, but the attempt failed and the stands were sold for just $100." (not really, but us American don't have pound signs on our keyboards :-)) Attempted and attempt probably shouldn't be repeated in such close proximity. Overall, I'm shaky on this article because the writing seems fine, but there isn't much of it. It just feels like there is more that could be said, but isn't because newspaper sources from the time aren't utilized. In addition to the mentioned lack of a section on the facilities, there's nothing on record attendances, or whether they have been lost to history.Giants2008 (17-14) 14:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed "They attempted..." to "They tried...", so that "attempt" isn't used too often in quick succession. As I have mentioned to User:AnOddName, I have also added a section on other uses and a section about record attendances at the ground has also been added. – PeeJay 16:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on sources
Slightly confused by your "General" and "Specific" subdivisions in the References section. "General" rather implies background reading, yet all these works have been specifically cited. It might be clearer if the citations were listed as "References" and the booklist as "Bibliography" or "Sources"
Probably a good idea, but I thought that the "General" references would have indicated that those books were used as general references for the entire article, while the "Specific" references would allow for the citation of individual facts from within those books.
This page at politics.co.uk also mentions the school's closure in August 2000, but I don't know how reliable it is. It would also seem a bit odd to have an MP's profile page in the middle of an article about a football ground!
What do you think of the politics.co.uk source I provided above? – PeeJay 09:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same problems, who's behind the site? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've completely replaced the ref with a site run by the British government. Had to ask at WP:GM for help in finding it though. – PeeJay 22:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—1a. There's a tendency towards a slightly pompous texture. It needs a thorough, independent audit of the prose. Here are random examples from the top.
Awkward: "the football club split from the railway company by whom they were run"
"Upon" twice in one sentence? I don't want any of them: "Upon the foundation of Newton Heath L&YR F.C. at the request of the employees of the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway Company's Carriage and Wagon Works, it became apparent that the club would require a pitch upon which to play."
"the site chosen was a "bumpy, stony patch in summer, [and] a muddy, heavy swamp in the rainy months",[2] and owned by the Manchester Cathedral authorities." -> "the chosen site – owned by the Manchester Cathedral authoritie – was a "bumpy, stony patch in summer, [and] a muddy, heavy swamp in the rainy months".[2]" Tony(talk) 15:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of opposing, could you not have simply left comments for me to deal with? I can easily make any changes you suggest, but an "Oppose" !vote just means that I'm going to have to go through this whole process again as soon as it closes. Anyway, I've made the changes you suggested, with the exception of the first one, which is actually the most efficient way of getting the message across. By the way, what do you mean by "a pompous texture"? – PeeJay 20:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about "the football club split from its parent railway company" for the first? You'd avoid the "by" problem and get crisper text. Tony gives other suggestions at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a; "Misplaced formality" suggests alternate words, for example. --anoddname 21:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good suggestion! Can't believe I didn't think of that one! By the way, I would really appreciate it if someone would give this article a thorough copyediting, if that's what it needs. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do it myself, seeing as I'm the principle contributor to the article, and Peer Reviews get piss-poor responses these days. Seems like FAC is the only way to get an article properly reviewed sometimes! – PeeJay 21:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the team of Ruhrfisch, Finetooth, and Brianboulton usually make sure that no article goes without a proper peer review these days. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dabomb. This article wasn't submitted for peer review; had it been, most of the prose issues raised at this FAC would probably have been sorted out long ago. Something to bear in mind next time, perhaps?Brianboulton (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Correction: it was peer-reviewed in October 2008, before I got involved. Sorry! Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Has the nomination been copy-edited yet? Please ping me when it has. Tony(talk) 12:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing oppose: the prose is much better (thanks to Malleus et al.). But if it's promoted, please make it a top priority to bulk it up a bit—this is on the slender side for an FA, and I wonder what further information might be included from the sources. Tony(talk) 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is L&YR ... make it tight for those not in the know ... Newton Heath L&YR Football Club SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Woody (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a while since I graced these pages... This had a previous nomination in 2007 which failed due to a number of concerns, mainly that there was not much separate information; now we have had a recipient and all of the publicity that goes with that. I believe that this is the most comprehensive resource on this medal and I have scoured the web and books for anything else that could be added and I have come up with nothing to add. In that sense I think this meets all FA criteria: comprehensive, reliably sourced, MOS compliant etc. Thanks for your time, Woody (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done now thanks. Woody (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1a looks good.
Can you check the commas in this quote, please? The one after "enemy" is ... eccentric if it's official! The others aren't stunning either as a flowing package.
The Victoria Cross for Australia is the "decoration for according recognition to persons who in the presence of the enemy, perform acts of the most conspicuous gallantry, or daring or pre-eminent acts of valour or self-sacrifice or display extreme devotion to duty."
"they are highly prized"—please clarify "they".
pp. with space is normal for page ranges, I think. Can you check them all?
Why is information lost in this pipe? "Siege of Sevastopol (1854-1855)"
I removed "It is estimated that", since the citation is there, and to state the fact of the estimation seems redundant. I hope this still works.
"last" --> "most recent"? Unsure.
If common country-names must be linked, better to pipe them to a more specific article. They're fine in plain text, I believe, here.
A$—I'd link first time only, and A is enough (once it was AU, once AUD). Unless it's unclear, after the first time, you don't need the letter: it's assumed. Tony(talk) 14:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Tony's suggestion, I went through and put spaces between "p."/"pp." and the page numbers (there were inconsistencies). I also made the date format in the references DMY. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the quote see the actual gazette (PDF). The commas are in the original quote, eccentric or not! ;) I think I have clarified "they", pp. was dealt with by Dabomb and I dealt with A/AU/AUD/$.
In terms of the Sevastopol link, the (1854-1855) is a disambiguator as there was another battle in WWII. It is already stated in the previous sentence that it was backdated to 1854 to include the Crimean War, do you think the dates of the battle need to be explicit in the text?
I think that "estimated" is needed in the sentence as nobody is certain how many medals can be made. I don't think "About 80 to 85 more Victoria Crosses could be cast from this source" makes it explicit enough that this is a complete guess on Hancock's part.
I don't understand your "last"/most recent comment. I couldn't find most recent in the article, and the only "last" is in reference to Keith Payne. He was the last VC recipient as no more Imperial VCs will be awarded to Australians so "most recent" would be inaccurate.
Thanks for your review Tony, regards. Woody (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All clear, Woody. Pity the gazetted text is so appalling, but I guess everyone is stuck with it. Who is paid to do it? Tony(talk) 03:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks Tony. I have re-added estimated in there now and left out about and approximately so I think it works without having any redundant words in there. In terms of the gazette, you would hope that they consulted historians and text experts but you never know, it was probably a bored civil servant! Thanks again for your review, regards. Woody (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Commonwealth citizens Australians can join the British Armed Forces so arguably the possibility does remain open (or a British VC could be awarded to an Austrlaian on attachment to British Forces), though now it would be considered a foreign decoration by the Australian authorities. David Underdown (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, hadn't thought of that, though I don't envisage it happening anytime soon, and in my opinion the wording is still valid as is. Regards, Woody (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets the FA criteria - well done. Nick-D (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review – The three images are quite fine. Good work. NW(Talk) 14:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - have previously made a few tweaks to the article, but nothing major. This is a well composed and presented article that fully meets the criteria. I do, however, have a few minor comments, but my support is not reliant on them:
"Both the Australian and New Zealand Victoria Crosses are to be made from the same gunmetal as the originals." - considering that both the Australian and New Zealand varients have been awarded, shouldn't this sentence be updated to reflacted that they are awarded from the same source?
"The Australian War Memorial in Canberra currently holds 61 Victoria Crosses, 59 awarded to Australians and two to British soldiers" - one of the 59 Australian VCs is actually Donaldson's VC for Australia, which he loaned to the museum soon after receiving it. This should probably be added in.
The presentation of dates in the citations is slightly inconsistent.
I have made edits regarding the AWM and the metal, but are you sure about the dates? I can't seem to find any inconsistency (Dabomb run a script over it earlier.) Thanks for the review, Woody (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Woody; they look good. I think it was only ref no. 29 that appears inconsistent. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got all of the newspapers, and I fixed the dead link thanks. Woody (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I support this for FA, but have the following comments that I feel should be addressed before it is promoted (nothing major, just style):
Please check the numbering of the in line citations, in the first sentence of the Original medal subsection, they are out of order...I think it would be better visually speaking if they were in numerical order (e.g. currently 12, 10, 11, but they should be 10, 11, 12);
There is some inconsistency in how numbers are treated. For example in the last paragraph of the Original medal subsection, you have "96 Australians" followed by "Ninety", should they not be both numbers e.g. 96 and 90;
In the References section one of the titles is capitalised irregularly;{{Done}} (fixed it myself)
In the Further reading section, the "Register of the Victoria Cross" doesn't quite follow the same format as the other entries;
Good work though and I hope to see it featured on the main page! Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, I think I have got all of your issues. (Oh and use of the {{done}} templates is discouraged so I have disabled it. Thanks again, Woody (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I could not decipher the Statistical note section; is there some clearer way to format that? Without understanding what's going on I have a vague suspicion that this bit is WP:OR.
I think YM was driven to this formulation by the demands of unbending peer reviewers (no names mentioned), who objected to the elongated reference strings that disfigured the text in earlier versions of this article. The precedent is Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, recently promoted FA, in which this format is used. Brianboulton (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with that, but if YM could just explain here the function of it, it would aid the comprehension of us FA reviewers. SGGHping! 09:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It just moves the big group ref to its own section so that it isn't in the main text. N-1 links to the bottom and then under the N1 there are 30 odd refs YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the first pic as it won't get past Jappalang anyway. Secondly, does the second one need an alt, because the layout of graph is already in the caption anyway as the caption is needed to explain what the data is already. The last part is not OR. Ring batted at No 9/10/11 most of the time and this can be seen by looking at the data sheet for each match and seeing that he is one of the last three names in most of them YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't entirely happy with the writing, although this is definitely within reach of promotion on that count. Here are a few random suggestions:
"Along with Ron Hamence and Colin McCool, neither of whom played in a Test during the tour, Ring called himself "ground staff" because of the paucity of the trio’s on-field duties in the major matches and they often sang ironic songs about their status." Long sentence, and the last idea doesn't really flow from the previous, does it. Ideal for a dash or semicolon: "matches—often, they would sing ironic ..."?
"As England agreed to have a new ball available after every 55 overs after the start of each innings in the Tests, more frequently than usual, fast bowling dominated over spin, and Ring was used primarily in the non-Test tour matches." Longish again, and it's easier for the readers if you dash out the dependent phrase: "As England agreed to have a new ball available after every 55 overs after the start of each innings in the Tests—more frequently than usual—fast bowling dominated over spin, and Ring was used primarily in the non-Test tour matches.
I've never seen top score hyphenated, although top-scored usually is. Daniel (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The MCC fielded seven players who would represent England in the Tests,[12][13][14][15][16][17]"—is the raft of six refs necessary for this plain statement?
Ring played in only the Fifth Test, taking one wicket for 44 runs (1/44) and scoring nine runs — This sentence scratches the itch of curiosity, as it fails to specify for both batting and bowling whether it is a combined total across two innings or only one. Is there any way to smoothly incorporate these two facts into the sentence?
Ring called himself "ground staff" — isn't 'ground staff' a collective, and hence it'd need to be 'a member of the' or similar?
For the entire tour, Ring took 60 first-class wickets at a bowling average of 21.81, the most expensive among Australia's frontline bowlers — 21.81 is still a pretty good effort, and I think it'd fit nicely to emphasise that this figure is a good number relative to other tours, but simply the worst for the Invincibles.
As England agreed to have a new ball available after every 55 overs after the start of each innings in the Tests — the second 'after' reads awkwardly, although I confess I don't have any immediate ideas for a solution.
Would it be worth including a one-paragraph introduction about Ring's form immediately prior to the tour, which justified his selection, at the top of 'Early tour'?
On the first day, Australia set a world record by scoring 721 runs on the first day, the most first-class runs made in a single day’s play,[10] but Ring was unable to contribute to the surfeit of scoring, making only one. — any suggestions on how to break this five-part sentence up? Its length plus the repetition of "day" makes it read awkwardly.
He then made an unbeaten nine in Australia's reply of 400. He then shouldered — 'He then'...
Ring took 3/51 from 21.2 overs in the first innings, leading the way; most of the Test bowlers were given a light workload — is 'leading the way' a generalised and conversationalist way of saying (in this situation) 'bowling the most overs', or 'taking the most wickets', or both? It's probably better to be specific in that part of the sentence in my opinion.
Can the Derbyshire and Glamorgan paragraphs be merged?
Watkins swung a delivery from Ring to the leg side straight into the hands of Hassett, who did not need to move from his position on the boundary — as a cricket follower, the use of the word 'swung' to describe a cricket shot caused some confusion upon reading, as its a term nearly exclusively used in relation to bowling rather than batting.
He removed Reg Simpson to break the opening stand of 60. The Gentlemen progressed to 3/217 before Ring removed Edrich for 128 — second 'removed' to something else, maybe dismissed?
one specialist spinner in the Tests.[18][22][26][28][34] — worth throwing these five footnotes into that note format you used for the other bulk references?
"Ring was omitted from this match"—slightly awkward "omitted", unless it's the usual cricket lingo. Was it against his will? If so, I'd use "excluded".
Omitted seems to be a general sports jargon. Excluded is seemingly reserved for people getting disqualified or banned for misconduct YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the preceding 1947–48 season"—I though we were talking about that very season. I'm confused.
I was referring to the 1947-48 summer in Australia, that preceded teh UK summer of 1948 because his form in the previuos summer determined whether he was picked or not YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"He then took three consecutive wickets as Sussex fell from 5/98 to 8/109 before eventually being bowled out for 138."—He was bowled out, or Sussex was? If the former, please insert a comma after 109.
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is a great medical article covering all the main topics of this important disease. The article has been greatly improved in the last year and I believe it deserves to be considered a FA. Its strongest point is possibly the high quality of the sources used, but prose has also been extensively reviewed by several editors. Garrondo (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Figure captions: neuron pictures need length scales or length indication in the caption (image width ...). File:BrainCaudatePutamen.svg: "shown in pink" is misleading because there is also purple and those two are hard to distinguish. Meanwhile, the figure description page mentions purple and orange. I would unify the description and also change the pink color on the picture itself into some other. File:Aspiration-pneumonia-002.jpg: caption should start something like "A tomography image of xxx showing aspiration pneumonia, a common cause of death in HD" where xxx is lung or whatever (too many abbreviations, and you can't show an illness pneumonea on a picture). Should it be "from HD" instead of "in HD" ? That caption needs expansion explaining what is actually shown.Materialscientist (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what do you mean with length scales.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely right on your point of the putamen image. However I do not know how to modify svg images. For the moment I have changed caption to "shown in purple and orange".--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lung image: caption changed. I have left "in HD", since it is not directly produced by the disease: the disease produces swallowing problems that may or may not lead to pneumonia.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Length scale is a calibrated bar on the image with a tag, such as "0.5 mm". If its too much work to add it, just say (image width 2 mm) in caption, or so. I can edit File:BrainCaudatePutamen.svg and change color as you wish, but can not save the result in SVG. Can save in PNG (or other formats), which as I understand is similar to SVG. Materialscientist (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The scale comment will be hard to address but I'll try to contact the authors of the image. Regarding the image change I suppose there will be no problem to change the pink part to the same color of the brain and leave only coloured the striatum, and then save it in png; nevertheless right now I believe it is clear which part is the striatum.--Garrondo (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed Dr FinkBeiner, he has been very helpful and prompt with the image, but may take a few days ... L∴V 22:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answer is it's 1 micron / pixel - the nucleus of central neuron is about 15 microns, so maybe a 100 micron scale at the side / bottom , and whether to call them microns, micrometers, or µm ? L∴V 17:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, colors are fine now, and I would keep them for consistency with the original figure file explanation. Pneumonia is not explained in the caption (non-specialist like me would never guess where to look at that image). Materialscientist (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of explanation are you thinking of? I am no expert either so we could maybe ask in the medicine project for a better explanation of the image.--Garrondo (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where and what is "pneumonia" (like "fine gray grains in the center indicate ..") BTW, the image is proposed for deletion, which needs to be addressed. Materialscientist (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is proposed for deletion, in the GA proccess reviewer said it did not add much, and it is hard to address your comments I have decided to eliminate it as the simpler solution.--Garrondo (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References: Some author names start with initials, some with last names, some with 1st names. Please unify.Materialscientist (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to change them.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have given all author names the same format.--Garrondo (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the comma, separating the first and last name, varies. Materialscientist (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is fixed now. Give me specific examples if otherwise please.--Garrondo (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Style: Hungtintin is either capitalized or not.
It was decided in talk page of the article to capitalize the gene but not the protein.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While only briefing checking the article to make sure the significance of the Venezuelan work was included (it was!), I found multiple instances of strange use of semicolons, and a copyedit problem, suggesting a copyedit needed (a foundation cannot have a daughter). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you knew of the Venezuelan project and that it is covered acceptably! I think I have addressed the semicolons, further copyediting still requred, I suspect. L∴V 00:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the Nancy Wexler / Foundation a little less ambiguous. L∴V 18:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks.Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.Eubulides (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ALT says "Every visible image should have alt text, unless the image is used only for visual formatting or decoration." The 9 images specified in the source of Huntington's disease are all functional, as they all link to their image pages, so they are not present only for visual formatting or decoration and they all need alt text. The motivation for this is accessibility to the visually-impaired; please see WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Eubulides (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added alt text, phew that's a tricky one ! L∴V 00:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was quick! You missed the image in History, though. Eubulides (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops missed adding the alt= tag! L∴V 15:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment...7 per 100,000 people, but is relatively lower in the rest of the world, e.g. 1 per 1,000,000 people of Asian and African descent - better is ...70 per 1,000,000 people, but is lower in the rest of the world, e.g. 1 per 1,000,000 people of Asian and African descent - this makes the difference clearer, and "relatively" is unneeded since you are talking rates, not absolute numbersJimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, have applied. L∴V 18:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the references, you have a mixture of dmy, mdy and ymd date formats (current refs #89 & #96, for example). You should use one style consistently throughout the references for dates of publication and access. Where references have a PMID, the day and month of publication add no real information. Have you considered simply using year of publication for those cases? --RexxS (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have eliminated the month parameter in those journal references where it appeared. I have also fixed a few other references. I believe its done.--Garrondo (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all done, with the possible exception of current ref #92, which has a PMC ID (and therefore has a guaranteed stable link to the full text) - I personally wouldn't bother with the accessdate there, as it's never going to be used. --RexxS (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you for your review (and to all other reviewers). I have eliminated the access date of ref 92.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with the disclaimer that I'm a member of WP:WikiProject Medicine, although not associated with this article. I believe it meets the standard of Wikipedia's best articles. --RexxS (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Current ref 67 (HDA research news...) is lacking a publisher.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added Huntington's Disease Association-United Kingdom as publisher. Also added lacking date of website (2009) for the same reference.Thanks for pointing it out.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support in terms of content I did the GA review of this article, and went over the content and references pretty thoroughly. I won't vouch for every tiny detail, but I believe that in this respect the article meets FA standards. I said at the time that I thought the prose style needed a major tune-up to reach the FA level, and I believe that is still the case, although it has definitely improved. A going-over by a skilled copy-editor would be helpful. Looie496 (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The pedigree chart in "Inheritance" uses the label "Wild Type". This term is appropriate for Drosophila and other laboratory experiments. I'm not sure that it's appropriate for human populations.
The photo of the brain section in "Diagnosis" appears to have a copyright issue.
That photo claims to show dilated ventricles. I cannot even see the ventricle on the left side of the picture. I can just about see the ventricle on the right side of the picture. [I don't actually know which is left and which is right because the orientation of the section has not been explicitly stated.]
From "Diagnosis": "the considered implications and relevance of having a confirmed diagnosis mean that less than 5% of individuals choose to do so". Which individuals? Those offered the test? All patients with Huntington's disease?
The section "Diagnosis", subsection "Genetic" has a graph captioned "Expression pattern of the Huntingtin gene". Even when viewing the graph separately, I can barely make out the names on the x-axis. Is it "X72 T B Lymphoblasts" with the highest rating? What is the significance of this? The y-axis is numbered, but with no indication of the meaning. The graph itself does not appear to correlate with any information in the section.
From "Society and culture", subsection "Ethics": "There is greater acceptance opposing permitting testing until individuals are cognitively mature". What does this mean?
1. I agree, 'unaffected' would be in keeping with 'affected male' etc. but not completely sure if affected/unaffected is the correct term to use either.L∴V 09:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended the image, also dropping the generation numerals which I believe were unecessary. L∴V 23:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image replaced, thanks to Frank! L∴V 22:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. It's individuals 'at-risk' but I'll edit later to avoid those annoying 'edit conflicts'. L∴V 10:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all thanks to Axl for his ce and comments of the article. Regarding the image: it was me who uploaded the images inton WP-commons, since I had not completely understood the disclaimer, and only today I have received an email telling me there was a possible problem with it. Reviewing the disclaimer it is true that the image may be under copyright. On the other hand the image proposed by Lee is also not suitable for wikipedia commons; since it says that it can not be used for commercial pourpouses in the lincence. I'll eliminate the article image for the moment . I'll look at the other comments later.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed comments 4 and 6. 6 changed to: There is consensus opposing testing individuals that are not considered cognitively mature, although there are defendants of a parent's right to make the decision.--Garrondo (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5 I guess it is a bit specialist for the article and doesn't quite fit. L∴V 22:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6 (see point 4)
Comments. I have initiated a line-by-line prose review on the talk page. Please respond to individual concerns there. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Garrondo and Leevanjackson for addressing my points. The adjustment to the pedigree chart has now created a different font style for the unaffected people. Perhaps you could change the affected label, so as to make the style consistent? The new MRI image of the brain is much better. I have adjusted the caption. This diagram of the normal brain may help you to see how the lateral ventricles have enlarged, the caudate nuclei have atrophied, and the cortical matter has also atrophied:-
Thankyou Axl, I have uploaded next version with the same fonts - well spotted! Do you think we should put the above image in as a reference - I agree it would help - but does it look too different for comparisons sake? L∴V 14:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lee, in one of the links you provided for the image (the first one) explains the image. It says: "Radiologically the heads of caudate are atrophied with enlargement of the frontal horns, along with a more generalised cortical atrophy." I think we should add the link as a ref for the radiologic changes (to explain we are not the ones saying the changes). I would not add the other image. Only my opinion.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point have added page as a ref. L∴V 14:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding point 4, are these individuals "at risk" because of their family history of HD?
There is a chance of another image showing healthy brain on its way - as time permits.L∴V 09:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ref does not explicitely say it, but in 99 percent of cases I would say it is a yes. Genetic testing would also only be used in those cases when even without a family history there is symptoms that indicate the possibility of suffering the disease.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding point 5, would you consider removing the graph "Expression pattern of the Huntingtin gene"?
Done (I was doing it as you added your comments :-).--Garrondo (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment more of a placeholder really - I will have a look and massage straightforward prose fixes. Please revert if you feel I have inadvertently changed meaning, and I will post queries below. Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the alternate names Huntington disease, Huntington's chorea, chorea major, in the lead. Yes Huntington's chorea was a common alternative until recent years, but the other two are highly uncommon or archaic (I have never seen it as huntington without the 's), and as such I wonder whether they should be instead discussed in some naming section within the article proper (which they aren't now). Technically all material in lead should be within article proper.
I tend to agree with you, if someone has come from a redirect it will be stated at the top, the list isn't complete either, note Huntington without out the possesive 's is in anticipation of all diseases to be stripped of this which seems to be a growing consensus. L∴V 12:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have eliminated chorea major and huntington disease.--Garrondo (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Physical symptoms can begin... - is not "Physical" redundant here?
Have refactored sentence to 'Symptoms can begin at any age, with physical symptoms being noticed first, most commonly this occurs between 35 and 44 years of age.' L∴V 12:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion as well as Coronal brain section showing the symptom can we also have a healthy one as a comparison? ϢereSpielChequers 21:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This might be tricky, having got sidetracked on wikicommons categorising mri scans have been unable to find one suitable as yet, I will try asking the provider of the current one, but I sense this might be another protracted image hunt.. L∴V 14:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a chance of another image showing healthy brain is on its way - as time permits.L∴V 09:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - All images have good descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport This article is quite well-written. I like how most of the sections begin with an "easy" version of the material and then progress to a more detailed explanation. I think this makes the information quite accessible to various levels of readership. I have a few questions and suggestions:
Chorea may be initially exhibited as general restlessness, small unintentionally initiated or uncompleted motions, incoordination, or slowed saccadic eye movements. - Is "incoordination" a medical term? I had to look up this word to make sure it was real. :)
Changed to 'lack of coordination' although I seem to remember some toing and throwing about the exact phrase in the past. L∴V 14:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Huntington's disease mutation is genetically dominant, and is not sex-linked. The change in length of the repeated section can be influenced by the gender of the parent it is inherited from. - I think this might confuse people unfamiliar with genetics. One sentence says "not sex-linked" and the next says "can be influenced by the gender of the parent". As these two sentences come from the introductory paragraph to "Genetics", which summarizes the material for readers not interested in or unable to grasp the specifics presented later, I think it is important to present this as clearly as possible.
Have expanded and reworded to: 'The Huntington's disease mutation is genetically dominant, because either of a persons HTT genes being mutated causes the disease. It is not inherited according to gender, but the length of the repeated section of the gene, and hence it's severity, can be influenced by the gender of the affected parent.' L∴V 15:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's better. (I've fixed the apostrophe problems.) Awadewit (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In these models, HTT has been shown to have several functions: it is important for embryonic development, its absence being related to embryonic death; acting as an anti-apoptotic agent preventing programmed cell death; controlling the production of brain derived neurotrophic factor, a protein which protects neurons and regulates the neurogenesis of new ones; facilitating vesicular transport and synaptic transmission; and controlling neuronal gene transcription. - This sentence is a bit too long to follow.
Changed to: In these models, HTT has been shown to have several functions. HTT is important for embryonic development, its absence being related to embryonic death. It also acts as an anti-apoptotic agent preventing programmed cell death and controls the production of brain derived neurotrophic factor, a protein which protects neurons and regulates the neurogenesis of new ones. Additionally HTT facilitates vesicular transport and synaptic transmission, and controls neuronal gene transcription. Better?--Garrondo (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although the initial motivation for having a pre-symptomatic test is strong, the considered implications and relevance of having a confirmed diagnosis mean that less than 5% of individuals at risk of having HD choose to do so. - What are the implications? Could we explain this a little more in the opening section?
I don't believe the ref s I've seen do more than speculate as to the exact reasons, so I have tried to list the implications seperate - grabbed from the genetic testing section but have to dbl check ref covers it, and leave any assumptions to the reader. Here's current attempt: 'Genetic counseling is provided to advise and guide an individual throughout the testing procedure and also in the consideration of the implications of having a confirmed diagnosis; on the individuals pyschology, on their career, in family planning decisions, and its impact on friends and family. Although the initial motivation of individuals at risk of inheriting HD for having a pre-symptomatic test is strong, upon consideration, only a minority choose to do so.' L∴V 00:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still wish that this could be explained in more detail, but ok. I've copyedited a bit. Awadewit (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How far the disease has progressed can be measured using the unified Huntington's disease rating scale which provides an overall rating system based on motor, behavioral, cognitive, and functional assessments, but is primarily used for clinical trials. - I find the "but is primarily used for clinical trials" part of the sentence confusing. Why is this essential to mention? To me, it just interrupted the flow of the sentences.
The age of onset decreases, and the rate of progression of symptoms increases, with the number of CAG repeats. - Perhaps you could remind the reader what "CAG repeats" are?
Changed to: with the length of the trinucleotide repeat. Better?.--Garrondo (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For example a woman, named Elizabeth Knap, was judged in the Salem witch trials although she probably suffered from HD. - Instead of saying "judged", could we a bit more specific about what happened?
Changed to: A well known case is that of Elizabeth Knapp, who probably suffered from HD, but in 1671 was accused of witchcraft in Groton, New Hampshire. Finally she was not condemned.--Garrondo (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked a bit myself. Awadewit (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Davenport's interested was created by his college friend Smith Ely Jelliffe, who was intrigued by the strong inheritance pattern of the disease - Something is amiss in this sentence.
Less amiss now... L∴V 15:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some countries' organizations have agreed not to use this information. - This sentence is a bit vague and doesn't flow very well with the rest of the paragraph.
Changed to: Some countries' organizations, such as the United Kingdom insurance companies,.--Garrondo (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added possessive. Now fine. Awadewit (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abortion after prenatal genetic testing with positive results and preimplantation genetic diagnosis in order to ensure that the disorder is not passed on are not free of ethical concerns. - This is a tortured sentence.
How about: 'The use of prenatal genetic testing or preimplantation genetic diagnosis to ensure a child is not born with a given disease has some ethical concerns' L∴V 00:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we either have to mention what some of the ethical concerns are or delete the sentence. Awadewit (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added from the ref: The former uses selective abortion; which is considered unacceptable by some, specially since being a late-onset disorder a person with the mutation will be free of the disease for many years. The latter, in addition to the problem of the low success rate in obtaining pregnancy, doubled in the case of HD, has specific ethical difficulties in those cases when the parent does not want to know if he has the disease.. As always some ce would be great.--Garrondo (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've copyedited the section. Awadewit (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Media depictions" section is basically a prose list. Perhaps the link List of Huntington's disease media depictions could be made a "See also" link at the top of the section and the section deleted?
Eliminated section.--Garrondo (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Until the 19th century Huntington's disease was grouped with numerous movement disorders. As with many of these disorders, people with the condition may have been persecuted as witches or thought to be possessed by spirits, and shunned or exiled by society." - This is sourced to a document from this website, which is prepared by faculty and undergraduates. That part of this site is written by undergraduates is a bit concerning. I would also note that the site says "We emphasize that we are not medical professionals" and that the faculty adviser is an anthropologist.
They have been accurate on other information, but I will see if I can find a more specific reference... L∴V 00:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have found an historical review by Alice Wexler. I'will add it through the day (I will have to make some changes to comply with it).Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it according to the new ref to: Historians have traditionally said that HD sufferers may have been persecuted as witches or thought to be possessed by spirits, and shunned or exiled by society before the 19th century. A well-known case is that of Elizabeth Knapp, who probably suffered from HD; in 1671 she was accused of witchcraft in Groton, New Hampshire, but not condemned. However these may not have been the case, at least in some places. Not all communities were so ignorant, as the family that prompted George Huntington's description were accepted by their local community, working all their lives until physically unable. Some tweaking would be great.--Garrondo (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is used as a reference to demonstrate that HD is mentioned in particular movies. It is not a reliable source. I would suggest finding a source that lists important HD-related media instead. (That is, if you intend to keep this section.)
Eliminated section.--Garrondo (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for edits and pointers, Awadewit, I am mostly working through comments chronologically ... I have incorporated some of the sentence on guidlines you pointed out was duplicate - but trimmed excess. Very pleased you found the intros gentle - it's been tricky striking the correct balance! L∴V 11:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last remaining issue for me is the lead. I've placed an alternate version we can discuss on the article talk page. I think the lead needs to be simplified a bit. Awadewit (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Last I checked, IMDB is not a reliable source since most of its content is user-generated, much like Wikipedia. Furthermore, I don't see where in these IMDB links it mentions Huntington's disease. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eliminated the section.--Garrondo (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment (hopefully I'll get time to do more later): What is the image in the infobox? Maybe the caption should say "An artist's rendering of..." or "An electron micrograph of..." delldot∇. 07:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back, article has progressed quite some since your original GA review pointed the way! From the ref is 'A montage of three images, using a specially modified microscope' which I have added. L∴V 11:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it should be added in the close up image too.--Garrondo (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added it myself.--Garrondo (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you are using the first citation an incredible amount. For a 10 page article, this is rather surprising. Some of these uses are adding the citation where there are multiple citations already or using it multiple times back to back, as in the last paragraph or the second paragraph of "Genetic". You can condense instances of that together. Please do, as the over use of the references really distracts from the ability to read the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, first paragraph of "Inheritance" lacks a citation covering the last sentences. By the way, is there a reason why the first source is favored over all of the other sources? Whole sections are mostly reliant on that source. Also, the layout of the section is a little confusing. You have mostly descriptions of the disease, then history of where it appears, then society, then where research is going? There doesn't seem to be any real unity. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the lancet article: There are practical and reliable sourcing issues. Firstly is a very comprenhensive (it covers most aspects of the disease), very recent review (2007) from a very high quality journal (lancet), which makes it perfect for our article per WP:MEDRS. Non of the other used references has these same thing. On the practical side its structure is quite similar to that of WP article so it is much easier to find a reference when you search for it. Finally when I came here a few months ago there were many sections almost completely unreferenced or referenced to primary articles, but mostly correct. When I found these review and I saw that it covered most aspects of the disease I decided to use it as the main ref of the article to check for any unreferenced statement and with it we were capable of eliminating almost 50 primary articles. As I have already said I believe that referencing each sentence makes it really harder for anybody to insert any information not backed up by sources and I really believe that such advantage really outweights the distractibility issue; specially for a possible FA article. I would feel that a reduction in the citation style would be against the article verifiability.--Garrondo (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that when you say also, the layout of the section is a little confusing you mean the lay out of the article. Am I correct? If it is the case it is the recommended lay out for disease articles per WP:MEDMOS. All recent disease FA had the same structure. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding ref on inheritance: I would say it is a basic knowledge, but we could search for a basic biology textbook. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reference. Axl¤[Talk] 09:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now detailed the lancet references so they include the exact page - this splits the previously used reference up into 10 seperate ones, making for easier reading and checking. The lancet review is an ideal source - it may have been loosely based on the WP HD article at the time, so has a similar flow - but with far more detail and thorough referencing, there are other references but few are free or as general e.g. the Harper/Bates Oxford Monographs book, (which is about $150) so it is best to find one reference that covers most of the ground reliably. L∴V 22:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All current reported links now disambiguated, thanks. L∴V 21:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support the application for FA status. Axl¤[Talk] 16:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's great ! - thankyou - and cheers for the edits and pointers you contributed :) Just some quick notes though; awadewit has her final point - a more accessible lead that is to be pasted (this may include moving refs from lead - they are currently there to keep a sensible order), Cryptic c62, I suspect, will have a few more copyed suggestions and their is possibility of a MRI scan of a healthy brain somewhere betwixt radiopedia and here to be added. L∴V 17:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone needs to deal with those refs at the end of the lead. There are now 11 lined up. They should be placed at the appropriate place in the article. Awadewit (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (either within the article, or at the appropriate place in the lead. As it stands now, unclear why 11 citations at end of lead). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they were added there because they were the most general refs on the disease; the ones that covered almost every topic. Nevertheless I have moved them to their first appearance. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – a good article that appears to satisfy the FA criteria. The only area where I really tripped over the jargon was in the first paragraph of the Huntington's disease#Macroscopic changes due to mHTT section, but I can live with that. There are a number of red links that all look to be notable topics, so I don't have a problem there. The citations appear okay, but could perhaps be further refined as a nit-picking exercise. Otherwise a nice piece of work. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets all of the criteria. Hunter Kahn and I have been working on this article the past few weeks/months, and now feel that it is ready for FAC.--Music26/11 12:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks.Images both need alt text as per WP:ALT.Eubulides (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did this but please check it; I don't normally do alt texts so I want to make sure I did it right. — HunterKahn(c) 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into it. The alt text still needs work, I'm afraid, as it is mostly not about appearance. It needs to be reworded to talk only about appearance and to discuss only material that can easily be verified by someone who can see the image but does not know the area. Please see WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples (particularly the 3rd and 4th examples). Eubulides (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the alt-text, please check if it's ok now. Orichalcon (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but it still needs work. The alt text makes claims about the visual appearance that a non-expert cannot immediately verify by simply looking at the image. For example, a non-expert won't know the names of the characters, or of the co-creators. Alt text should just describe the visual appearance; it shouldn't explain the image. Here's another way to think about it: if there's any repetition between the alt text and the caption, then something is amiss, as the alt text should talk only about visual appearance, and the caption should assume that you can see the image and shouldn't waste its time on visual appearance. Again, please see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples. Eubulides (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite funny actually, anyone who passes by takes a stab at trying to improve the alt text. What do you think about the changes I've made.--Music26/11 19:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much better. I tweaked it a bit more to follow the guideline more closely. Eubulides (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just a few quick ref and format fixes before I can support this. Amazing work, but:
As I understand this is common knowledge to any South Park episode, but could you find a source for the TV-M rating?
Done, added to Reception section. — HunterKahn(c) 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First paragraph in production seems clumped.
I broke it apart. — HunterKahn(c) 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other than those, fantastic work! I can tell you're attempting to get Season 1 all Featured, likely to make a Featured topic, so good luck with it. The Flash{talk} 03:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The infobox is very very long. I suggest making the episode chronology like [Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo]] and cutting down the size of the caption. The plot summary section is also a little long in my opinion; can it be cut down to three tight paragraphs by removing details like "Unlike Stan, Kenny is able to shoot animals, and this impresses Jimbo" or the bit about the education film? (not seen the episode yet, but stuff like this doesn't seem particularly important to me to the overall plot) indopug (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the infobox concern, I think. The stuff about the Duck and Cover film could be removed from the plot section, but the reason it is mentioned in the section is because the film is discussed in the cultural references section.--Music26/11 12:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One possible option would be to either shorten the "Duck and Cover" mention down to a very brief mention, or just remove it altogether, but then go into more detail about it and how it is used in the episode under Cultural References. What do you think, Music? — HunterKahn(c) 15:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever Indopug prefers.--Music26/11 15:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Hunter says looks good to me. I suggest this because I feel the plot is tighter and better handled in other Season 1 FAs such as "Damien". indopug (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made the change. — HunterKahn(c) 01:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Parker and Stone felt the early animation of the series had strongly improved with the "Volcano" episode" seems a little awkward, especially since "Parker and Stone strongly disliked." is just before it. Not sure how to fix it.
I tried a change. What do you think? — HunterKahn(c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
""Volcano" and the episodes "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" and "Weight Gain 4000" received an average 1.4 Nielsen Rating, which translates to slightly more than 1 million viewers." Seems kinda random to mention those other two episodes. Why those two, and not other ones? Why mention any others? Probably based on the source, which I can't read.
The reason for this is there was no source that I could find for the ratings of this individual episode, but I did find one saying these three episodes averaged a 1.4 rating. I see what you mean, though, so to avoid confusion I just dropped the 1.4 rating and the referenencs to the other episodes, and said it was seen by approximately 1 million people. Better? — HunterKahn(c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest mixing up "Volcano" and "the episode" a bit more with "its" in the lead. Maybe further down too, but I haven't read that far yet.
I tried to switch it up a bit. — HunterKahn(c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"nuclear weapon attack." might be better as "nuclear attack." Not sure.
"some of the South Park residents dig a trench under Randy's guidance to divert the lava" Maybe "under Randy's guidance some of the South Park residents dig a trench to divert the lava" Not sure if that's better.
I tried a new wording. — HunterKahn(c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the hunting group members try to flee only to find themselves trapped" -> "the hunting group tries to flee but find themselves trapped"
The word "felt" is used a few too many times. For example, 'film was featured in Los Angeles; Stone felt, "If they could do it, we could."' Could maybe be changed "Stone said" And "happened after the fart, and they felt it was not funny." could be "happened after the fart, therefore it was not funny."
Drops those and a few felts. — HunterKahn(c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Parker said he did not believe Comedy Central would allow it to air" Should it be "Parker said he did not believe Comedy Central have would allowed it to air"?
The paragraph that starts "The "Volcano" episode was in production when the pilot episode first aired on August 13, 1997." is a bit choppy in the middle.
I changed it to "when South Park debuted on August 13, 1997." Better? — HunterKahn(c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Parker and Stone recorded commentary track for each episode" Should it be "a track" or "tracks"?
"Jimbo blames the Democratic Party for passing laws that he feels are overly restrictive on hunters and gun owners.[9] Upon learning children are in danger due to the volcano, Mayor McDaniels seeks publicity for herself by contacting the television news magazine programs Entertainment Tonight[10] and Inside Edition.[11]" This part is kind of choppy
The sentence "The song "Hot Lava", sung by the Chef in the episode, was featured on the 1998 soundtrack Chef Aid: The South Park Album.[17]" make the end of its paragraph choppy.
I'm not sure how to improve this sentence. Can you give me any suggestions? — HunterKahn(c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph in the Reception section should have some sort of lead sentence. Something like "The episode was received favorably by critics" or whatever you think describes the critics overall.
I think this got removed by accident; it's in the lead but not in the Reception section. I added it. — HunterKahn(c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - asides from minor touching finishes, this is a nice, comprehensive article. Also, I bet you could add one or two more images. Nergaal (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - Could you give a .html link for this image, rather than just a .jpg link? Other than that, images look fine. NW(Talk) 04:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Music has gone vacation and I'm handling the FAC concerns for now, although I'm not sure the answer to this one. If possible can you tell me more specifically what needs to be done? If not, and if it's not such a big deal that it would hold up the FAC, could Music fix this whenever he returns? — HunterKahn(c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that this is a minor detail, and I will try to explain what I mean with an example:
I know that might be confusing, but forgive me, it is late. Just pop me a note if you don't understand my (awful) analogy. NW(Talk) 04:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this fixed? If not, could you further clarify for me, or just fix it yourself? I'm still confused...
Oppose, 1a and 1c. The prose needs work, as indicated by some of the samples below, which should not be considered comprehensive. There are problems with the research, and the one source I checked randomly has been misused in the article, indicating the need for a full source audit.
(Not to be a stickler, but the above user (Peregrine Fisher) noted those were the only prose errors she found ("That's pretty much it"). I believe she is saying that is comprehensive, at least from her perspective. I think I've addressed your below issues, and since this article has gone through a peer review and additional comments here in the FAC, I think the prose fixes we've made would have to be considered comprehensive. Unless you can point out any more errors, which of course we will address and go from there... — HunterKahn(c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your point. Just because one editor provides what they consider a comprehensive review doesn't mean another editor won't see other issues. As illustrated below, I easily located issues that Peregrine Fisher missed. --Andy Walsh(talk) 16:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I misunderstood (I responded to these comments at work so it's possible I was distracted). I thought you were saying that you felt Peregrine's comments were not comprehensive. I thought you were speaking on her behalf. But I certainly didn't mean to suggest her comments should limit your ability to provide any comments yourself. Sorry about that. — HunterKahn(c) 18:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
"The episode was inspired by the 1997 disaster films Volcano and Dante's Peak, which Parker and Stone strongly disliked." The "which" is ambiguous here. Consider, "both of which" for clarity.
"The episode also parodied the Duck and Cover educational videos from the 1950s and 1960s, which advised people to hide under tables in the event of a nuclear attack." Same problem here, as "which" modifies "videos" but the placement is illogical. Eliminate the problem by removing the comma and using "that" instead.
The loophole statement requires explanation. Loophole in what?
The loophole is you can kill an animal in self defense, so shouting "it's coming right for us" makes it appear the shooting is in self-defense, even though it is not. I thought this was expressed by the current wording, but if it isn't, can you give any suggestions? — HunterKahn(c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know what it means, but I was saying I don't think the text is clear. Consider someone reading this whose country doesn't have such laws. Will they know what your meaning is? --Andy Walsh(talk) 16:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I've reworded it, although I'm sure it could still use some work. What do you think of it now? !!!!
"During the hunting trip, Jimbo proclaims Kenny as his honorary nephew" Spot the extra word.
Thanks for making it a game. ;) Fixed. — HunterKahn(c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The boys then see Cartman in disguised as Scuzzlebutt and ... the boys start shooting at him." When you remove the middle clause, you can see the redundancy.
"However, he is unable to do so and this gives Cartman enough time to escape and remove the costume." Try replacing "this" with "the delay" to avoid the ambiguity.
"... because the Volcano film was featured in Los Angeles" What do you mean it was featured in LA?
Changed to "set in". — HunterKahn(c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The animators of the show spent the first four episodes of South Park trying to get the characters animated the way they wanted." This is awkward: the animators don't "get things animated".
Changed to "perfect the animation of the characters". — HunterKahn(c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"By 'Volcano', Parker and Stone felt the textures of the episode were improved" The "of the episode" suggests you are referring to Volcano... so "By 'Volcano', Parker and Stone felt the textures of 'Volcano' were improved"?
Dropped "of the episode" and reworked the sentence slightly. — HunterKahn(c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"'Volcano' generally positive reviews." ?
This was added recently as a result of above comments and I think it's pretty obvious a word was accidentally omitted. Resolved. — HunterKahn(c) 16:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Research/Sourcing
I'm disappointed in the "Cultural impact and references" section, which sadly lacks either. Why call it that if you don't discuss cultural impact of the episode? And I'm unsure what "references" means. The section is really just a list of pop culture influences that made their way into the episode, correct?
I think the title "Cultural impact and references" was used because it not only included the references, but a small account of how the popularity of the episode endured beyond just this episode (the shirts, the famous lines, the game). We used "Cultural impact and references" for this specifically because that is what other South Park articles use and we wanted to maintain consistency, but if you have a suggestion for a different title I am open to it. — HunterKahn(c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as why you used the heading, I figured as much. However, we need to make sure the heading reflects what is actually there, over being consistent with other articles. Maybe "Cultural references"?
I have no problem with that. Fixed. — HunterKahn(c) 18:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the first source listed as a CD? Isn't it a DVD?
No, it's a CD. As it says in the last paragraph of the production section, the commentary tracks were released on a CD seperately from the DVDs because the networks wanted to censor Parker and Stone and they refused. — HunterKahn(c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I randomly checked one of your sources and found that it doesn't support what you attached it to, which doesn't bode well for the remaining sources and indicates that a full review is needed. You write that Cartman's "'Democrats piss me off!'" is "especially popular among ... fans" and cite the Lowry Variety article, which says no such thing. It merely says the line is "memorable", which is a far cry from what you wrote.
I could be wrong here, but I feel that the source is sufficient for the wording in the article. It may not overly state that it's popular specifically with South Park fans but I think the context of the article makes that pretty clear. Plus any South Park fan knows that this is the case, which obviously by itself wouldn't be enough to warrant an inclusion, but Ii felt applying this citation to it along with a little bit of common sense was sufficient. That being said, if you still feel it's a problem I'll remove it. But I don't think it's at all fair or sensible that this one small reference should sink the entire FAC (especially if it's removed). — HunterKahn(c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the source is sufficient to back up what you've written. Lowry calling something "memorable" is just stating his opinion. He was in no way stating that the quotation is popular among the South Park fan base. It may not be fair to judge the other sources on this one, but it is sensible. No one said anything about sinking the FAC—I just suggested that if the one source I randomly checked was misused, the others should be checked. I will be looking deeper into the sources in the next couple days. --Andy Walsh(talk) 16:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, sorry if I misunderstood. In the meantime, what do you feel should be done about this particular reference? Should it be removed altogether, or do you think it can be reworked? — HunterKahn(c) 18:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query - Would you mind sending me the article text for refs 14 and 15 (Martin and Casimir)? You can e-mail them to me. --Andy Walsh(talk) 17:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. If you need others, let me know. — HunterKahn(c) 01:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting article, mostly well-written.
Right at the top: two misleading "alsos": "It also marked the first of two appearances for Scuzzlebutt, who became a popular minor character and appeared in the mobile video game, South Park 10: The Game. The episode also parodied the Duck and Cover educational videos ..." I'm looking for where we've been told before about first appearances, and then about parodies ... can't find them. This is a matter of false cohesion; simply removing the two offending words will make the narrative run much better. (I think ... try it.) Then further down: "The plot was also inspired by the large amount of hunting Parker and Stone saw ..."; but "inspired" does not appear beforehand. Why not "Another influence on the plot was the large ..."? The "also" is also odd at the opening of a para,, since also is such a strong back-reference and has to jump across the para break. Tony(talk) 09:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your issues have been adressed.--Music26/11 08:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are currently two images of the volcano in the article. Are both necessary? Theleftorium 18:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not, they have different purposes. Kakun (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does it mean? Do you mean there's a legal problem? The second image compares between the film and the episode, the first one deals with the episode itself. Kakun (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NFCC#3: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." Theleftorium 18:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One just shows the volcano and the other shows another type of information, the lava ball coming out of the volcano comapred to the lava ball in the film. If you are still convinced it should be removed, please wait for another opinion. Kakun (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Agreed with Nergaal. Kakun (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I don't think that new fair use image is going to cut it. It's kinda ORish. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's OR but I removed it anyways. Kakun (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about original research, there's actually a source to the caption within the article. Kakun (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that image meets the non-free content criteria anyway, as it doesn't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Theleftorium 23:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's mostly for non free images, but picking which meteor in the episode looks like which meteor in the movie is what seems ORish. Maybe I'm being overly strict in my intrepretation. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't try to do that, that movie had lots of balls. Anyway, I removed it, if someone decides to put it back he's welcome. Kakun (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it now fulfills all the criteria for an FA. With lots of help, including from MemChu's organist, I also believe that all the issues/concerns from this article's previous FAC have been addressed. The close paraphrasing problem is now solved, thanks to Awadewit, who has approved moving forward with this FAC. The images are much improved. The "gaps in content" (architecture, earthquakes, staff) are now closed, thanks to the research assistance of Erp. Even Scartol contributed, by creating the article's attractive tables. There's even a video of the above-mentioned Robert Huw Morgan playing one of the church's organs. The improvement of this article has been a real labor of love for all of us involved. I believe that the article is as pretty as the church is, and deserving of that silver star. --Christine (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks, as Scartol knows, I su--I'm really bad at tables and coding and such. Makes it looks much better, I think. Doncha love the collaborative nature of the project! --Christine (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tables (formerly galleries) now have alt text, but this still needs work. For example, File:Memchu hopedetail.jpg's alt text is "hope detail", which says almost nothing about appearance: it should be something like "Pointed bottom of a colorful mosaic labeled "HOPE" whose margin has a head with flowering ivy. The mosaic is in a spandrel framed by stonework featuring the head of a woman." (or something like that: someone expert in architecture could no doubt do a better job). Also, the images that were not in galleries all need alt text. For example, the image in the lead infobox needs alt text; please see Template:Infobox religious building/testcases for a suggestion for that one. Eubulides (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completed. Sorry, I wasn't sure what you meant, since this is the only time I've seen something like this requested during an FAC. I don't understand, though, why you would request something that my browser doesn't even show. Ah, well, I obey. --Christine (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not for your browser; it's for the browsers of visually impaired readers who cannot see the images (see WP:ACCESSIBILITY). Please try to pretend that you're someone new to the topic who is briefly explaining what you see to someone over the telephone. Don't interpret the image or explain where it came from (that's for the caption, or the main text).
The current alt text still needs some work, I'm afraid. For example, for Image:Memorialchurch1903.jpg the alt text is currently "Stanford Memorial Church, as it appeared prior to the 1906 earthquake. Notice the clock tower, which was never replaced." Almost none of this alt text describes visual appearance: only "church" and "clock tower" do that. The alt text should be reworded to describe the visual appearance only. For example, "Facade of church, in front of a clock tower that is another story higher than the facade".
Ooohh! Ding--the light bulb goes on. It's an accessibility thing. As we used to say in grad school, the ADA rules!! Sorry, and thanks for the explanation. Hope my improvements are adequate. If not, could someone else improve on my attempts? --Christine (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry my explanation was so bad. It's not an ADA thing, it's a W3C thing, but you've got the basic idea right. Thanks for working on it. I tweaked the alt text you added to try to conform a bit better to WP:ALT #What not to specify. However, two images (marked "alt=??") are still lacking alt text; could you please fill those in? (One of them has two captions but no alt text; I expect that one of the captions was intended to be the alt text, but can't tell which one, which is a sign that the alt text needs work.) Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There, now I've got it. Thanks for catching the ones I missed. Done, I think. --Christine (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and thanks for doing that. Eubulides (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I copyedited this article several months ago, and I'm impressed by all the additional research and work that has been poured into it. I wish we could eliminate the horizontal scroll bar, but those images of the stained-glass windows are just too lovely to shrink. Assuming the alt-text specifics are worked out, I see no reason why this shouldn't be certified as an FA. Well-written, exhaustively researched, and lovingly polished. Kudos to all involved! Scartol • Tok 15:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't support this yet. There were umpteen errors screaming out for correction.
Real solid mistakes about the events of the 1906 earthquake and the process by which the building became damaged. Half a dozen mis-statements in that category at least. I believe I have fixed them.
Twice the present facade was described as having a "quatrefoil" window. It doesn't. That was removed in the 1913 rebuilding.
The alt descriptions, which had been laboured over (I know that) simply hadn't had enough looking to get them really right. The figure of God (or possibly Moses) was described as an "angel". The figure of an angel (Cherubim if you like) was called "head of a woman". chancel windows were called "clerestory" windows. They are not.
A great deal of the information that was present was badly organised. If you are starting on the personnel, stick to it. Don't suddenly shove in the dimensions of the building. They don't belong there.
Things that were placed in order were often not in an order that was logical ie size, importance, chronology.
The word "edifice" was used without understanding.
...... I have given the article a bit of an overhaul, but I'm sure it still needs correction.
Formatting. Placing picture side by side is effective if they are the same size exactly. If you do this with pics of different shapes and sizes, it looks ghastly. It is better to just have a small gallery and be done with it. Layout is important to the general effect of your article.
Can I suggest that you reread the article very carefully, because I can be certain sure that I will inadvertently have introduce typos, gaps, things you don't like and perhaps an error or two along the way. I'm a very sloppy typist for a start, and I use British spelling that you might want to fix.
If I cvan help with architectural concepts/terminlogy, drop me a message. Amandajm (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amanda, thanks for your input. I've noticed your edits and the above comments, but haven't been able to address them because I've been swamped with actual real-life work (for which I'm actually getting paid) and family obligations. It's my hope that I'll get to it before the weekend. Thanks for your patience. --Christine (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I started looking at some of the newer edits to this article, and although I'm only at the start of my review, I already have a question. When I re-submitted this article for FAC, every statement made in it could be backed up by reliable sources, which parallels my understanding of what an FA should be. It was obvious, though, that this article's main editor (that would be me) has never viewed or set foot in the church, so many of the descriptions of its appearance and architecture were lacking. I depended upon the descriptions of others, most notably Robert C. Gregg in his book, Glory of Angels. Gregg's book was invaluable in the final improvement of this article in preparation for this FAC. Amandajm's additions, however, have obviously been written by someone who knows the church. So here's my question: does a description of a physical object that's the subject of a WP article by a viewer constitute OR? One of the examples of similar FAs provided during this article's last FAC, St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery, seems to do the same thing, although not as extensively. If it's not OR, then much of Amandajm's edits can stand; if not, we're gonna have to restructure them. --Christine (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please fix the citation errors. On a very quick runthrough, I spotted copyedit and MOS needs. I left some inlines, and suggest a tighter copyedit is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning descriptions. Your average person can look at a Notre Dame de Paris (for example) and say "The cathedral has three doors, two towers, a rose window in the middle and rows of statuary". Someone with a knowledge of medieval architecture will describe the style of the rose window as "Rayonnant" and refer to the statues as being in a "gallery".
This description:
The facade faces the Inner Quad, and is connected to other buildings by arcades which extend laterally. The entry is through a narthex or porch extending across the building. The nave has a single aisle on either side, separated by an arcade with a clerestory above it. The crossing is formed by a structure of square plan which once supported the central tower. Over it is a shallow dome supported on pendentives and rising to a skylight. Arches separate the central structure from the nave, transepts and chancel. The chancel and transepts are apsidal. There are galleries in the transepts and an organ gallery above the narthex in the nave. The sanctuary in the chancel is raised on steps.
...is based on primary sources (ie photographs of the building), with the exception of the first two facts which were already written into the article. This is all very simple stuff.
There is cited reference to the style of architecture of Stanford having been inspired by the Piazza of St Marco. This, of course, (and most significantly,) includes the facade of St Mark's Basilica. It is St Mark's that is reflected in this church, not in its shape, but in its mosaics and stone carving. Although mainly dating from the Romanesque period, St Marks stone carvings and mosaics, as well as the mosaics and large panel paintings by late medieval artists such as Cimabue, Duccio, and others, are generally referred to as Italian Byzantine in style. In other words, the 'known source' of the decoration at Stanford is described as Italian Byzantine, therefore the style of decoration at the MemChu is also Byzantine.
However, a cited source describing the decoration as Byzantine would be a good thing to have. I'll look through the online sources to see if and where the word has been used.
The other stuff is not OR. I just happen to know the correct terminology for what I'm looking at. If I made a claim like '"the style of the mosaics resembles that of the Sacristy of Westminster Cathedral", then I would be saying something so specific that it would definitely be Personal Research, unless referenced to another source.
Amandajm, you are introducing unformatted citations;[26] articles cannot pass FAC without correctly formatted citations (see WP:WIAFA), so please assure that your edits conform with the criteria. If you are uncertain of how to do so, it may be wise to discuss edits on talk first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unformatted citations are the least of the problems. Anyone who knows how to format them can fix them. Having a citation in place, is better than no citation at all. Sandy, if you know how to format citations, why not just do it, while I get on with the research? Why bother leaving a messages that takes longer to write than correcting the problem? The links are there. Go for it!
The PR problem. I found sources referring to the Byzantine nature of the decoration. I also took a careful look and juggled some of the wording, in order that what was stated complied with the available sources.
There was one addition of mine which was decidely PR. It concerned the chancel being similar to those of the churches of Ravenna. I deleted this. Everything else is a straightforward statement of what is clearly visible. It is not interpretive in any way.
There is a quotation about the glass of the large facacde window which says something like "there is facetted glass set in like glass". It sems to be a mistake. Could the writer check this quotation and see what it really says?.
Fixed the error; the correct word is "gems"--inset like gems". Thanks for the catch. --Christine (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the article of St Michael's Golden Domed Monastry, that you mmentioned about. There is a paragraph which describes a previous (partly speculated) state of the building. There is only one citation, but I would believe that the entire description came from the same cited source.
Other than that, there is quite a lot of historic and interpretative material in that article that has no given source. To make an unsourced statement that "the design is based on that of the Church of So-on at Somewhere" is not the same as looking at the building and saying "it has four domes clustered around a larger central dome. They are onion-shaped and gilded."
The article also has a stupid contradiction at the beginning of the history. It presumes that the reader thinks/knows somethinmg, and tells the reader it isn't true, without the reader having a clue! I'll leave them a message. It really isn't FA stuff! I don't know how it got there.
Just checked the dates. That article has been an FA for 3 years. Standars have gone up since 2006. Amandajm (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I shall be supporting this, when I have finished digesting it becasue it s very good. However, I keep thinking in certain sections that I have read this before, but I suppose when history and architecture are rightly seperated that is going to happen. This phrase "the Rev. Scotty McLennan, has stated that although she "built an unambiguously Christian church, with Jesus' outstretched arms of love at the very pinnacle of the mosaic facade outside, and Jesus' birth, life, death and resurrection gloriously portrayed in 19 large stained-glass windows, ... there were rabbis and priests and imams speaking [at the church] right from the..." I lost interest in what the boring man was saying and never reached the end of the quote; let's leave things like "Jesus' outstretched arms" out of an encyclopedic page, no matter who said it. Giano (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, G. I figured the easiest thing to do was to just delete the thing. Which, as a "touchy-feely" type, was really hard for me to do! ;) --Christine (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For Amandajm: In the Plan section, you wrote the following: "There are deep galleries with swept balustraded fronts..." I'm assuming there are typos here. I changed it to my best guess: "with swept balustraded". Could you make sure this is correct? Also, should "baulustraded" be wikilinked, since (I'm assuming) it's an architectural term? --Christine (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are not "swept" that means curves rising or falling in Baroque terms; if you look here [27] they are concave or convex (I can never remember which is which). Giano (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response "Swept balususutradeded fronts" is not my doing. However, they do appear to be balustraded. And they are concave.Amandajm (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, someone who knows what they're doing needs to change this, please. I've never said that that person was me, so I appreciate those of you who have filled in my deficiencies. --Christine (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am now fully tuned to the page, it is very long - too long; I think the Rev Scotty needs only a mention, all that about his books and so forth can be shunted off to a page of his own, that and all the other priest/Chaplains stuff is making the page to clumbersome. If they all have pages of their own, all that need to be said is when they were incumbant. Why not start a page Priests of Mem Chu or whatever?Giano (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: The prose size of this article is 42kb, which is a pretty average length. Scartol • Tok 00:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but the page drags a little there, as some of these people already have their own pages, is it necessary to have so much about them there? Those 2 sections could be realy tightened - it does seem heavy reading and is not really strictly about the church. Giano (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, G. I've been pondering about it, though, and I vote to keep the section in. It's there because sometime in this long process, someone recommended that the article have a "Staff" section because they felt that there needed to be something about MemChu's current ministry. The church and its business is still a vital part of the university, through its staff, and its article should reflect that. I'm sorry you find it so boring! ;) --Christine (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, keep a staff section, perhaps grinning priests just make me nevous, but this whole paragraph "McLennan, who is a Unitarian Universalist minister, was an activist neighborhood lawyer"[49] in Boston before becoming a university chaplain, first at Tufts University.[49] At Stanford, McLennan has taught courses in ethics and business. He is author of the books Finding Your Religion: When the Faith You Grew Up With Has Lost Its Meaning and Jesus Was a Liberal: Reclaiming Christianity for All and co-authored Church on Sunday, Work on Monday: The Challenge of Fusing Christian Values With Business Life.[50] Garry Trudeau, who was McLennan's roommate when they were students at Yale University, based his Doonesbury character, the Rev. Scot Sloan, in part on McLennan.[49]" Has nothing to do with the subject watsoever, and needs to be shunted to his pwn page - It almost sounds as though you are plugging his books (I'm sure with catchy titles like that, he will hit the 100 best sellers, without your help) What I'm trying to say is, it is dull and of no interest to anybody disinclined to click the link about the man. Just introduce him as an author and old student and let the blue link do the rest. The same with the rest of them, keep it short and punchy. Giano (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're too funny. Grinning priests make you nervous. Your humor and good graces have changed my mind, kind sir. I deleted most of the above, but kept the activist lawyer bit and the Doonesbury connection. Should I make similar deletions for the rest of the staff? --Christine (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No that will do, if that's how you want it - it's much improved and so much easier to read- it will need updating from time to time though. Lemme have a last flick through and I'll support. Giano (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just spotted this which may need calrifying: "Members of the university community use the sanctuary for "quiet, for reflection, and for private devotions" - do they actually use the sanctuary? The "unordained" in the sanctuary, isn't that unusual? Shouldn't they stay chancel-side on the sanctuary steps? Giano (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. The sanctuary is not used. --Erp (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as I am about to support, I see someone has made this edit [28], I won't revert in case the editor in question is a principal editor of this page, but it looks dreadful, the MOS does not demand that all images (especialy on those concerning arts and architecture) have unspecified sizes. The small images look silly and spoil the pages appearance and no longer assist the text in an illlustrative manner - which is the point of them. MOS rules are not blanket enforcable.Could Sandy or Roaul confirm this's it's one of those thigs that seems to confuse people.Giano (talk) 06:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you tell me to, I will revert. I'm not afraid to do so. --Christine (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone who knows the place re-write this for clarity "Behind the communion table, in the church's apse, contains a raised floor originally used for commencement ceremonies, as well as a mosaic reproduction of Roselli's "Last Supper",..." and whilsy doing it lose the "as well as". Sorry to keep nit-picking - the sun is beaming through the new oculi at its looking pretty good. Giano (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, sweetie, it's all right. Aren't you supposed to be picky? ;) At any rate, I changed it to: Behind the communion table, in the church's apse, is a raised floor, originally used for commencement ceremonies, and a mosaic reproduction of Roselli's "Last Supper". Golden mosaic niches have been placed at the right of the communion table. Does that work for ya? --Christine (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Raised floor", "ceremonial purpose"......that's a dais isn't it? --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understood it to mean mezanine - so it needs to be clarified. Giano (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "to the right....." who's right - clergy or leity? Better east - west etc. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are actually two raised levels in the chancel. The first starts with a semi-circular stair, on the east side is the pulpit and on the west side the lectern (both are just visible in the picture linked above). Further south is the straight altar rail and stair to the second level, the sanctuary, where the marble altar and behind that the Last Supper mosaic are. I have never actually seen the altar used in a service, generally a communion table is set on the first raised level, if the service includes communion, and that is also where most performances I've seen are. --Erp (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it does! SUPPORT. Giano (talk) 06:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Position of Communion table. Don't use this as a reference point at all. The chancel is the chancel. It architecturally part of the building. That is the reference point. So we say that the floor of the chancel is raised by three steps. (it is almost alweays three, but the number can be verified by looking at the plan.) As for the raised bits under the pulpit and lectern, it is so nnormal and unremarkable as to hardly require description.
For the record the chancel floor is raised by 7 steps in MemChu. The back half behind the altar rail is raised another 2 steps. --Erp (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just seen (per this edit [29]) this plan File:Memchu.svg, it needs to be incorporated and used as a reference, why has it not been? I am all for this being a FA,but I can see no excuse for this not being 'very used - is there a reason? Giano (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was an argument about possible copyright problems. See end of first FAC archive discussion, I think it is possible ok but I think we need the experts' opinions --Erp (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, funnily enough I know someone who is very good at drawing plans - I beleive I noticed him "supporting" somwehere below me a moment ago. Giano (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - might take me a few days - till Monday say if Sandy/Raul etc. can keep this open until then. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be so marvy if you did that. I've been giving virtual kisses during this FAC; JC, if you drew a plan, you'd get one, too. As far as keeping the nom open 'til Monday, that's something that gives me pause, since it means more time for more hands, which will make things more complicated. Is there any way this article can pass with this pending? I mean, will not having a plan prevent it from passing before Monday? And regarding the support below, I'm changing my nickname of this article to "'my' pretty little article" to "'my' lovely little article. ;) --Christine (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely more hands (and eyes) are to be welcomed? Anyway - it might not take me that long......--Joopercoopers (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely article by the way, despite the infobox. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Holding, pending plan. Also, the section regarding retrofitting..... First sentence says the building was extensively retrofitted. Then second sentence says the building was rebuilt. You can't really do both as a 'retrofit' rather implies there's something there upon which to 'fit'. I'd just say the building was rebuilt with the new measures to guard against future earthquake damage. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a major reconciliation of the "interior". Hope it meets with approval. Amandajm (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the 'retrofitting' problem meself, plan on the way in 1hr. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3 - Hopefully these can be fixed quickly.
File:Memorialchurch.jpg - The license for this image is CC-by-SA 2.5, but the website does not indicate that license. Perhaps I missed it?
I have sent an email to the photographer to release the correct license. --Christine (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case he decides not to (he's a professional photographer and might be reluctant to do so), you might want to think about other image could be used there. Awadewit (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not an issue, since I just received an email from the photographer releasing the license. Could someone please direct me what to do next? Do we go through OTRS, like with the Morgan file? --Christine (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, OTRS is the way to go. Awadewit (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request at OTRS has been made. --Christine (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Robert Huw Morgan Bach FugueG.ogg - OTRS permission is not yet sufficient. Note the tag: "An email has been received at OTRS concerning this file, and can be read as ticket 2009062010003299 by users with an OTRS account. However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file.
Dr. Morgan released the correct permission, but the OTRS guy didn't make the change to reflect this. I've resent a reminder requesting that the change be made. --Christine (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the change has been made, so this concern is addressed. --Christine (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Memchu mosaics.jpg - We need to add information to the image description explaining why the mosaics are in the PD.
Please forgive my denseness, but I'm not certain how to address this. Could someone else take care of this?
Thanks, gotcha. Done. --Christine (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to check, were the interior mosaics made by the same people at exactly the same time as the exterior mosaics? (I see you have copied the info from the image I linked above, so I am assuming that is the case.) Awadewit (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They were indeed made by the same people and at the same time. The exterior mosaics had a couple of reworks in the 1910's as the initial setup due to window style change and removal of the dedication to a side panel after the earthquake didn't satisfy the Board of Trustees. The interior ones didn't have much done beyond repair work. I need to reread the article myself to make sure there is nothing I know is wrong.--Erp (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading article now. Awadewit (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - As Christine mentioned, I worked a bit on this article, but its transformation since I last saw it is wonderful. The additional detail about the architecture is excellent. In my opinion, it is well-sourced, comprehensive, and well-written. I will fully support as soon as the image issues are resolved. Awadewit (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing my typos etc. There are still quite a few red links to various people. Do we need a few more stubs on them, or are they not yet suuficiently notable for Wiki articles? Can someone decide? They look messy at present! Amandajm (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So I just read and jiggered with the organs.... My goodness that Organ Morgan (see Under Milk Wood) has an overabundance of enthusiasm! Just a couple of good quotes was enough! Amandajm (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Huw Morgan is an enthusiast (and a native Welshman). I gather on the gossip line that he is hoping for a fifth organ for the church soon.--Erp (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plan completed - please let me know if any additions or alterations are required. I'll place it in the article somewhere appropriate. I've had to infer the locations and swings of some of the doors, and I had insufficient information to include the window penetrations, but this should be sufficient for our purposes. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the number of windows, it would probably be a bit cluttered. One thing is that the aisles (E) might imply there is no center aisle (the wording in the paragraph also implies this). I have the feeling another word is needed instead of 'aisle'. I think the swing of the side doors under the stairs are going the wrong way.--Erp (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People being "walked up the aisle" is a popular misconception - you're walked up the nave .....that's not just a aphorism for the honeymoon. (the centre aisle is really the bit between the columns with the high roof = the nave) The aisles are definitely the walkways to the left and right of the nave, usually under the lower roof. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - is the infobox absolutely essential? --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Oh what a lovely beautiful plan! As for the info box.... I hate them! But because the TOC is rather long, the info box just sits there and doesn't disrupt the text and pictures below it, even on a wide shallow screen. So in this instance I'm prepared to leave it there to keep the lovers of info-boxes happy. I must say that I would love to visit this church and hear the Romantic "Rolls Royce" organ and the Maserati organ and the Continuo Organ and t'other organ! Wow! And how great those stained glass windows look! Now that I know how to line them all up like that, I have already used that formatting elsewhere. Amandajm (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Architectural type: Church" <rolls eyes>, this doesn't even make sense. Building type might, but given the name of the article includes 'church', there's absolutely no value in it whatsoever that I can see. The geographic location is repeated just a few lines down from the usual coordinates in the top right. Romanesque, Byzantine, pre-Raphaelite styles are listed, but does that really express the 'hybrid' nature alluded to in the article. Usual problems with infoboxes, which usually work well with subject with established taxonomies such as mushrooms, plants, subatomic particles etc. really not adding anything of value to arts articles. I'm tempted towards a bold removal, sorry Christine.......reaching for the edit button.........gonna....have......to.....loose.....it.......--Joopercoopers (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should add, I'm likely in a minority view here, so please revert if you feel appropriate, my support is not contingent on the removal of the box. I just think the lead is better illustrated with an exterior and interior view, rather than an arbitrary collection of random facts of dubious use and value. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind you removing the infobox, really. I lean towards your viewpoint about 'em. I figure if an article is lovelier without it, it's gone. Lovely articles may not be a WP policy, but it's one of mine. When Sesame Street gets closer to FA, I'll be fighting against its infobox, since it uglifies the thing. I think that losing the infobox in this article makes its lovelier, but I wish we had another image for the second one, one that shows a view of the nave, since we've already got a wedding image later on. I'm busy today, so Jooper, if you want to take care of that, and as long as it doesn't affect the FAC process, knock yerself out. --Christine (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True but the wedding is incidental really to the image of the interior architecture. I'll have a look in cold storage though.....--Joopercoopers (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and kind of matches the colours of the first image which is nice. Will somebody double check the licensing, I think I've got it right....but.....--Joopercoopers (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article went through FAC recently, where it was tweaked and improved with the much-appreciated help of several editors with FA expertise. Hopefully it is now ready. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I worked with Crum375 to resolve my issues during the last FAC and further after it was archived. Everything I had was fully resolved. --Andy Walsh(talk) 21:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concern has been resolved as well. Some references are still missing access dates, but that's it. An excellent piece of work on a most unpleasant subject. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment and all the help. Regarding access dates, my own rule is to include accessdate on any online citation which is not a reliable news site. In the case of news sites, they have a publication date, and the main issue there (and elsewhere) is link rot, which is very frustrating. Almost every couple of days a link either dies or goes into a subscription-only mode. I have just re-run the link checker and fixed the broken links, so we are OK for the moment. Some links have been picked up by archive.org, but many haven't, so it's an ongoing battle. Thanks again, Crum375 (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this is a really nice article, I would be pleased to see it reach "featured article" status. Harlem675 08:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Nicely written. Just a few niggles:
"new owners/operators"—is there an alternative to the slash? I think MoS says to try to minimise, especially when it's not a toggle situation. There's another slashed couplet further down.
I hate them too, but I can't think of a way to get rid of them without either losing information (e.g. drop "operators"), or making it more cumbersome (e.g. "owners and operators"). Any suggestion is more than welcome. (The other instance further down is "passenger/journalist", and there is also one "and/or", for a total of three slashes in the main text.) Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"And" would surely be the answer. Would anyone thing owners and operators were different?Or simply "ExcelAir"? Tony(talk) 06:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think your last suggestion is best, since "and" makes a long sentence even longer. Using plain "ExcelAir", as you suggest, is also a compromise since it adds repetition and provides slightly less information, but on the whole it may be best, so I put it in. Crum375 (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I normally ask for items to be delinked, but here, BST could do with one, if there's a useful, focused page at hand.
BST is simply linked (to UTC-3) in the lead, for brevity. Then, when it first appears in the body, it is presented as "BST (Brazil Standard Time)". A footnote goes on to explain: "All times mentioned in this article are Brazil Standard Time, UTC-3, unless otherwise noted." All subsequent occurrences of BST are unlinked. Are you suggesting a different strategy? Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for not following. Does "sure" mean the BST presentation/linking strategy is OK as it is, or do you think it needs modification? If the latter, can you elaborate? Crum375 (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it's usually standard for the acronym to be spelled out and linked on the first appearance, followed by the unlinked abbreviation in parenthesis. Here, "Brazil Standard Time (BST)". Dabomb87 (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the first instance in the body to your order (acronym second). The problem with doing the full expansion in the lead is that the lead sentences are very complex already, and adding a full acronym expansion there with those extra words, for something which is of trivial significance, reduces legibility for no real gain. Instead, it's simply wiki-linked in that lead sentence, and has the full expansion (and an explanatory footnote) where it's first mentioned in the body, where there is more "space". But having said that, if others here think the full acronym should be expanded in the lead sentence, I'll defer to their judgment. Crum375 (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The Embraer jet, despite sustaining serious damage to the left horizontal stabilizer and left winglet, was able to continue flying, though its autopilot disengaged and it required an unusual amount of force on the yoke to keep the wings level." Didn't like that sentence much: two contrastives in "despite" and "though". "sustaining" could be removed.
I removed "sustaining" per your suggestion. Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Immediately after the Embraer's emergency landing at the Cachimbo air base, BAF and Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC) officials detained and interviewed its flight crew.[14] The officials also removed the two "black boxes"—Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Flight Data Recorder (FDR)—from the Embraer, and sent them to São José dos Campos, São Paulo, and eventually Ottawa, Canada, for analysis." But perhaps this? "Immediately after the Embraer's emergency landing at the Cachimbo air base, BAF and Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC) officials detained and interviewed its flight crew,[14] and three days later removed the two "black boxes" (the Cockpit Voice Recorder and Flight Data Recorder), sending them to São José dos Campos, São Paulo and eventually Ottawa, Canada, for analysis." Unsure. And possibly "later" instead of "eventually", which implies a delay.
I believe the Embraer's boxes were sent to São Paulo immediately, not after three days. I have changed it to the following, to eliminate the perception of a delay: "The officials also removed the two 'black boxes'—Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Flight Data Recorder (FDR)—from the Embraer, and sent them to São José dos Campos, São Paulo, and from there to Ottawa, Canada for analysis." Is it any better? Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
charged by Brazilian Federal Police with "endangering an aircraft", a charge that carries a penalty of ... — do check for repetitions like this; possibly ", which carries ..."?
I fixed that one per your suggestion. I try hard to avoid them, let me know if you see another one. Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you check that every abbreviation is used enough to bother the readers thus? I see that Cockpit Voice Recorder is spelled out after I've coded CVR from a previous section. Is it worth it?
I have removed the expanded form of CVR in the "Recommendation" section. In the case of other abbreviations, such as "FDR", they are defined not just for usage within the article text, but also for possible use inside the references or footnotes. Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"state of manufacture" × 2 in the same sentence. Please audit for this type of thing.
Here is the full sentence: The NTSB, in accordance with the provisions of ICAO Annex 13, participated in the investigation representing the state of manufacture of the Boeing, state of registry and operator of the Embraer, and state of manufacture of the Honeywell avionics equipment installed in both planes.[2] The goal of this paragraph is to explain the legal connections of the NTSB to the accident, prioritized by importance. We need to get across that the NTSB was legally the SOM of the Boeing, SOR of the Embraer and its operators, and SOM of the Honeywell avionics on both the Boeing and the Embraer. The connection to the two aircraft is mentioned first, because it is the most important, and within that, SOM is more important than SOR. Then the (less important) avionics is mentioned, which applies to both aircraft. If we somehow combined the two concepts, e.g. "SOM of the Boeing and the Honeywell avionics on both aircraft", it would have three drawbacks: it would lose the logical presentation order (aircraft first, then equipment); it would refer to the Embraer before it's defined in that context; and it would (arguably) be overall more cumbersome. I am open to suggestions, however. Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have combined a few more. As I see it, para "choppiness" is a balance between separating distinct ideas and creating visual clutter. For example, in the "Embraer flight and communication sequence" section, there is a chronological description of events, and lumping too many of them into a single paragraph would be confusing and reduce legibility. If you have any specific paras which you feel can be merged with no harm, let me know or feel free to fix them. Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your comments and suggestions. Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for several image concerns as a whole:
File:Br-map1.jpg: what source do the flight paths follow (put the sources in the image page: "Source" or "Description")?
Added source in Commons. Crum375 (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Embraergol737.png: what source does the depiction (two jets on level course fly straight past each other, no evasive actions taken) follow?
Added source in Commons. Crum375 (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:H4-BRS.jpg: File:DOD-H4.pdf is gone; please supply the link to the page where the document is hosted to allow verification that this extract is from American federal material.
The original site where it was hosted in 2006 is no longer there. I have kept the original high resolution PDF file, though, which is clearly marked as U.S. Fed. Gov. material. I can email the file to anyone interested (it's 4.3 MB). There was also a discussion thread with Steve Smith about it in the previous FAC. Crum375 (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would put it that the original authors are the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.[31] Some sites with the Enroute Charts.[32][33] Do you still have the original url (web.archive.org might have archived the link)? Failing that, please format the source properly with details using {{Cite journal}}, {{Cite book}}, or provide the full title, publisher, date, author (if any specific), and document number (if any) instead of the filename. Jappalang (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the redlink from the source and added all available publication info, using the {{citation}} template (since it's not a book or a journal). I did this for both this image as well as the H4-Teres extract below. The PDF file, which is a high resolution digital version of the Enroute High Altitude chart, has the following on the information side panel: "(c) Copyright 2006 by the United States Government. No copyright claimed under Title 17 U.S.C. DOD Flight Information Publication. Enroute High Altitude Caribbean and South America. H3-H4." I can't find the original URL where it was hosted. Although you could well be right that the NGIA produced it, there is nothing on the chart to indicate that (it just says "DOD" generically). Crum375 (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed on Commons. Crum375 (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Waldir Pires1.jpg: point "Source" to the page that is hosting the image, not to the image itself.
Fixed on Commons. Crum375 (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting feedback; other Images are appropriately licensed or verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. Crum375 (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well written and informative. Covers all the main aspects of the event. My only complaint would be to merge some of the very short paragraphs, particularly in the lower mid sections.Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 10:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I hate visual clutter too, but I try to keep separate ideas physically separate. Can you list specific sentences that you feel can be merged without forcing disjointed ideas together? Crum375 (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Once I stumbled on this and nominated for the GA. And I see it's as deserving of the FA promotion than ever. igordebraga≠ 04:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Who could resist the charms of an 18th-century woman who...erm...well, I'll leave it to you to read exactly what she did, only today she probably would be paid lots of money for doing it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment: Wonderful queasy subject. Just a few odd points at present:- Various smallish concerns have been addressed and I am happy to support. I'd love to see it on the front page! Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overuse of quoted material - I'm particularly concerned by the 180+ word blockquote near the beginning of the article. Most of this, I think, could be paraphrased with just the odd word or phrase quoted directly
The quote is well out of any copyright claim, but it exists as a contemporary introduction to Toft, and her story. Although the article would seem to be a biography, its more about the hoax and the subsequent scandal. I think quotes are important in this regard, certainly in my mind they help me to better understand the mindset of the day. Just as the public first read about the story 280-odd years ago, the modern viewer reads the same curious report. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
I am half-convinced by this reasoning. If no other editor is concerned about the extent of the direct quotes, I'll say no more. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caption for the Cuniculari image is way, way too long, and contrary to WP:CAPTION
I've reduced it slightly. The caption contains text that I could find no other place for in the article, I thought it better in the caption as the reader can compare it with Hogarth's illustration. I can also remove the 'blasphemous parody' bit, but I need the descriptions of the Tofts to remain there. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
The reduction isn't really apparent. I find the overblown caption distracting – why exactly can't you find a place in the text for this material? According to WP:CAPTION, a caption is "a short text message"; also: "More than three lines in a caption may be distracting". We are further told: "Do not tell the whole story in the caption." I really think that this needs addressing. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
The only real place I can put a physical description of Toft is at the point where she is introduced as the protagonist, in 'Account'. The problem for me is that if I do so, I have to use St. Andre's description - and he hasn't yet been introduced. I feel its better to use that description once St. Andre has been introduced to the reader, and especially so alongside an image of both her, and her husband (and St. Andre for that matter, who is also in the image). There are three sentences in the caption, and I don't believe that anything is lost by having that information there - in fact I think it being there makes the article easier to read. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
Have a look now - I've shortened it considerably. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw several sentences that could be interpreted as editorial opinion, for example: "The timing of Toft's confession could hardly have been worse for St. André, ..."
St. André had staked his professional reputation on the affair, the subsequent disgrace I feel removes any hint of editorial opinion here - if he had waited a few days, and not published his account, he could very well have escaped relatively unscathed as several other surgeons did (Manningham escaped by the skin of his teeth). Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
Something like "The timing of Toft's confession was very awkward for St. André, who had staked his professional reputation on the affair" would, in my view, be neutral. "Could hardly have been worse" reads like POV. I can live with other slightly POV-ish wording, but I believe this one has to be softened. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
How about this? I've tried to keep it short (the 'more fanciful' part refers partly to Maubray's The Female Physician and his Sooterkin theory). Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it more attention later, but thanks for brightening my day. Oh, and there is a dablink that needs fixing. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the link - I'd left it there as I don't know which Henry Fox it is. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no other issues with the article other than the above, and will be happy to support when these are resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent choice! I myself considered writing this article, and one on another person of interest, George Psalmanazar, but I never got around to it. Glad someone put the time and effort into this! Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is present but needs to be rewritten. The current alt text basically just copies the captions, which isn't right. There should be little overlap between alt text and caption: the former should only describe the visual appearance, and the latter should assume you can see the image and should not waste its time describing visual appearance. See WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples. Eubulides (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few minor changes but the pages you link give no guidance for the description of drawings and paintings. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
Thanks, that's much better, but a bit more work is needed still. Drawings and paintings use the same rules as other illustrations typically (unless the art itself is the topic). Phrases that should be removed from the alt text, because they can't be verified simply by looking at the images: "Toft", "Methodist", "satirise the story", "Frenchman", "of the doctor's earlier life". Phrases that could be removed in the interest of brevity (see 2nd example in WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples): "A coloured portrait of a", "An portrait of a", "An engraving showing", "A drawing of a". Typos: "An sequence". Eubulides (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's better, and I struck the phrases you fixed. How about the remaining phrases? Also, it might help to give a few more details of some of these delightful illustrations, e.g., something like this for St. André, "Three-quarters portrait of a middle-aged man in an 18th century red and blue frock coat with a black tricorn hat under an arm. He wears a white wig and ruffled shirt, and gazes sadly downwards with his hands slightly raised." Eubulides (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? I'm afraid I can't go into too much detail on the second Hogarth image, that would require an article of its own (as many of Hogarth's illustrations do). Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better and better. I agree about the detail. I still see two phrases that cannot easily be verified by a non-expert who can see only the image, and which therefore need rephrasing or removal: "the State Crown of George I", "Methodist". Less importantly, perhaps "Frenchman" should be "French surgeon" (since the visible caption in the image says that)? Eubulides (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, and thanks for doing all that. Eubulides (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed 'Frenchman' to 'French surgeon' Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image reviewFile:Nathaniel st andre.jpg - I couldn't get the source on this to work. Notice that the license says "This applies to the United States, Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years" but the author is unknown. If we can't locate the author, we should change the license to PD-1923 and establish that the image was published before 1923. (I've worked on the rest of the images and they are all fine now.) Awadewit (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Click the edit button on the image description and use the url there - for some reason it won't work if you click it. No idea why. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I also fixed the licensing. Awadewit (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments Toft is always a fun story! I'm excited we have such a good article on her!
Prose, part 1 - The lead and "Account" section need to be copyedited. Here are some examples of why:
I think the lead can be better - it is weighted down with detail right now - just tell us the essentials of the story. Not who sent letters to whom.
Local surgeon John Howard was called to investigate, and upon delivering several pieces of rabbits wrote letters to several people, some of which came to the attention of Nathaniel St. André, surgeon to the Royal Household of King George I of Great Britain. - This sentence is awkward.
Already a mother, several months earlier she had become pregnant, but as a peasant in 18th-century England she had no choice but to continue working in the fields. - Is the clause about her already being a mother necessary? It seems a bit awkwardly attached.
I think so - (IMO) some readers might assume that motherhood was unknown to her. I think its important people understand the modern perception that she did it for money and attention, and not because she was mentally scarred by the miscarriage. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toft complained of painful complications early on, including in August the expulsion from her body of various pieces of flesh, one "as big as my arm" (possibly an abnormality of the developing placenta causing the embryo to stop developing, and the ejection of clots and flesh). - Almost a run-on.
This has been edited down a few times, but I'm no physician and am not certain which parts of the medical description I can remove. Can you offer any help? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the version I rewrote: Early in August, she expelled several pieces of flesh, one "as big as my arm". This may have been the result of an abnormality of the developing placenta, which caused the embryo to stop developing and blood clots and flesh to be ejected. - I just don't like "expelled" - any thoughts on that? Awadewit (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote several letters to Davenant, notifying him of progress in the case, some of which came to the attention of Nathaniel St. André, since 1723 a Swiss surgeon to the Royal Household. - Almost a run-on
The word "investigate" recurs throughout the article. Could another word occasionally be used?
I never notice these things until they're pointed out to me. You're quite right, so I've replaced several. Some uses weren't quite correct anyway. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prose, part 2 - There are a few places that need further explanation.
The pictorial satirist and social critic William Hogarth was notably critical of the gullibility of both the Methodist Church, and the medical profession. - The Methodist Church is suddenly introduced at this point in the lead and the point is never explained in the article.
Hogarths criticism of the Church isn't directly related to this story (more to the Cock Lane ghost) so I've deleted that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maubray was a proponent of Maternal impression, and also warned pregnant women that over-familiarity with household pets could cause their children to resemble those pets. - I think the article should explain what maternal impression is, as the idea is really bound up with this story.
How about if I re-word the sentence to remove the 'and also', to join the theory and his warning? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think we need to explain the theory. Clearly, Toft was relying on this theory when she made up her story. Awadewit (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can say that. None of the sources I used state in certain terms exactly how Toft's story matured. Bondeson goes furthest, giving possible explanations, but then casting doubt on each. Toft was an illiterate 18th-century woman, I doubt she or her peers would have known of The Female Physician. I think it more likely that Maubray latched onto the story as proof of his own crackpot theories. The best I could do would probably be to paraphrase Bondeson's work, but I'm slightly uncomfortable doing that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't suggest adding that explicit connection to the article. However, this idea (not necessarily Maubray's specific theory) was widely available and known during the 18th century - it was actually quite influential. It turns up in a lot of literature, particularly in chapbooks for the poor, for example. Anyway, I really think that we should not allude to theories like this, which are clearly relevant to the topic of the article, without explaining them. All it would take is a sentence. Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? You can change 'widely held' to 'common' or 'popular' if you like. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
St. André therefore desperately wanted the two to attend Toft; their Whig affiliations and medical knowledge would elevate his status as both doctor, and philosopher - The Whig reference is not really explained to a reader unfamiliar with 18th-century politics.
Could you add something into the article itself about the Whigs being the ruling party and that is why his status would have been improved? Awadewit (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does this look? Its short and perhaps slightly clumsy, but I think that to expand further on politics would be straying off topic for this article (I have included a link elsewhere to Grub Street, another I'm working on, that article contains quite a lot of relevant political info). Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensiveness and/or structure:
This article is ostensibly a biography - should it have sections about what is known of Mary Toft's life? Right now, everything is about the hoax.
I'll address the above points later, but the story of Mary Toft is pretty much the hoax - she was a peasant woman in 18th century England, little else is known about her. I do recall some information on a family tree, but the only salient information I think I could add is her illiteracy (her confessions are like text-speak). Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to make sure. Awadewit (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to support this article. Awadewit (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - (of course, there will be things) Third paragraph of "Aftermath" could be split into two. The first, second, and third sentences of the fourth paragraph in that section seem not to go together. Perhaps put together a linking sentence at the beginning and then list events that happened to her. The page kinda just dies with Pope. It seems a little odd that Pope ends it although his is dated earlier than the others. You need to find some kind of conclusion or way to summarize to end it at the last piece of contemporary statement. I don't know how, but I am sure someone like Malleus can come up with an idea if you can't think of one. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does this look re the three sentences? Unfortunately I'm not sure how to end it quite as you suggest - I'd like to write something like "Pope aptly summarised the affair with the following verse" but I'm unsure if that's suitable. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a critic who praises Pope's lines, then you could end like that. Be glad I like you - "a rudimentary answer to this question is suggested by one of the most brilliant and witty satires of the Mary Toft affair" from here. Also, here are some other sources I found: 1 and 2. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had a think about how to do this, and decided the best way would be to add a short section detailing the general piss-taking that Toft received. I've integrated the ballad into that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support No idea how much of it is accurate, but it on good faith. This was a fun read, and educated me. Would be good to have on the front page for pure novelty if nothing else. If there's a snag I don't much like all the red links, and not sure how many of them are likely ever to get an article. Otherwise, great job! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to create articles for each - Sooterkin will most certainly be one. Nearly everything in the article is verifiable online, you can see much of the original documentation hereParrot of Doom (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting; I'm going to put this in Culture and society, but if others think it belongs in Health and medicine, it can be moved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominating on behalf of Kafka Liz, who is off wiki for a while. We nomed this article a few months back but it went down in flames for a number of reasons. It has recieved a few detailed reviews since then and benefited from several combs by all involved. Thanks to Ricardiana and Fowler&fowler especially for so much insight, time and effort. Other than that, looking forward to engaging with other editor's suggestions and comments. Ceoil (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ealdgyth. Ceoil (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know which River Dove it is, or is this one of the ambiguous place names in the poems? Awadewit (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know, better off not linking it. We shouldn't be intentionally linking to disambiguation pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that we don't know, it is that it is a deliberate ambiguity in the poem. Note the sentence in the article: "Similarly, no insight can be gained from determining the exact geographical location of the "springs of Dove"; in his youth, Wordsworth had visited springs of that name in Derbyshire, Patterdale and Yorkshire." Knowing this, what do you think we should do? Awadewit (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The explanatory footnote is good, in my eyes. If you wish, you might unlink the amiguous link in prose, and link each specific River Dove mention to their respective article. See what I mean here. Of course, that raises its own issues. It's totally up to you. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the disamb link and added in two of the river links to the footnote. The Westmorland Dove river does not have a page, or one that I could find. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a good compromise. Thanks for the quick thinking! Dabomb87 (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was an interesting post on the sub-article talk a while back[36], worth pondering. I might ping Wetman on this. Ceoil (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm very close tosupporting this. It's well written and exhaustively researched. I have a few nitpicky items which I've posted on the article's talk page, because they don't seem important enough to oppose the FAC over.
There is, however, one exception: The tenses shift regularly, from "Wordsworth characterised..." to "Wordsworth complains...". (There are numerous other examples as well, involving critics and others.) I feel strongly that the tenses should be standardised before I can vote to support. Scartol • Tok 13:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everything on this list has been resolved, the tense issue among them. Awadewit (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Sorry for the delay in my response! Scartol • Tok 22:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question:I am very close to supporting; I have a question - why doesn't A slumber did my spirit seal have it's own article yet? It is one of only 5 Lucy poems, the others all have short researched articles that are linked and are helpful to the readers understanding of the set....Modernist (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support fine job all...Modernist (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a stub. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava is helpfully expanding the stub as we write. Awadewit (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support this piece of beautifully crafted prose with just one comment:
"The expiration of the lease in Alfoxton soon provided an opportunity for the two friends to live even closer." The previous para talks of the two living within walking distance of each other; accordingly, we do not know who lived at Alfoxton (which has not previously been mentioned). Also, I expected Alfoxton to be a town or village and was surprised to discover it was a building. Suggest this read "The expiration of the Wordsworth's lease of Alfoxton House soon provided an opportunity for the two friends to live even closer." hamiltonstone (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "The expiration of Wordsworth's [[Alfoxton House]] lease soon provided an opportunity for the two friends to live together." to clarify. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support—very nicely written. Tony(talk) 06:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS I've trimmed the length of the first caption, but it still winds and wraps awful bad. Can the pic be a little larger? Or can some of the information be relocated into the main text? Same for the other captions: tiny pics and one-to-three-word lines. Bad look. See the Palmer pic. I recommend possible combinations of three measures, as hinted at above: trim, relocate, enlarge. Why, for example, do we need "Wordworth's" in the Palmer caption? I'm trimming it now, but more needs to be done. Tony(talk) 06:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PPS I presume that in the title, lower-case "p" is appropriate. You don't immediately learn whether the title for the collection is Wordsworth's. My trimming of the Palmer caption neglected to insert "The". Should it be there? Tony(talk) 06:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits. I've trimmed the lead caption, and inserted a 'The' in the text for the Palmer image. Ceoil (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explanatory note - "The Lucy poems" or "The Lucy Poems" is used by scholars when referring to the grouping. "Lucy poem" is a more casual reference to poetry about the Lucy themes. Rather subtle and the latter is mostly used in comparisons with other works. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've shortened some of the captions even further. Awadewit (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Benjamin Robert Haydon 002.jpg - National Portrait Gallery image. I assume these are still fine to use; I haven't looked into the legal threat business for a while.
They are fine, yes. Awadewit (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added to category and gallery. Awadewit (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Margaret Oliphant Wilson Oliphant.jpg - Under FfD at the moment, but looks like it will be kept. If someone could close that discussion and move the image to commons and do everything there, that would be good.
Deletion discussion initiated under an attempt to delete images from the NPG. All votes are for keep. Awadewit (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:SamuelTaylorColeridge.jpg - The image at the NPG has slightly different tones. Which do you think would be more suited for use?
I'm not sure which scan is closer to the original. Has anyone seen the original painting? Awadewit (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coleridge was not feverish nor was he purple. The first image is closer to the depiction of Coleridge in multiple books. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, do you mean copies of the painting in books (as, of course, the painter could have chosen to represent Coleridge any way he wanted)? Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean reproductions of the portrait. They are slightly more brown than red, but they are closer to the Wiki coloration than the NPG. NPG images have also had some other problems, especially with shadowing and the rest. A rather curious situation that one would think would be corrected. Someone like Durova might be able to elaborate on that point, as she is big on restoration of images. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images look good, except for Margret Oliphant. I don't think that the issue with that image is sufficient to merit blocking promotion. NW(Talk) 00:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to keep the pic of Oliphant, but I dont feel strongly about it. Thanks for the review NW. Ceoil (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. And in my opinion, you should be able to keep the Oliphant image; those FfDs should all eventually close as keep. NW(Talk) 18:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOS#Ellipses: some ellipses are spaced, others not. Is that intentional? ("Strange fits ..." and "A slumber...") SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a fix to this, I would suggest that all of the short titles be provided without ellipses. Many of the poems are known by the short titles, so it wouldn't be a problem to have them used after the first instance (with full titles in the subheadings, of course). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I'm on a really old computer though this weekend, and ctl F is not working for me. Can get to it about 15 hours, after my beauty sleep and a short drive. Ceoil (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I trust y'all can fix this minor issue later (don't have a brawl!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Samir 07:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meets all criteria in my opinion. The article recently went through WP:GAR where many additions were made. I invited many of our medical types and non-medical types to look over the text over the past month. All images are free; it was a challenge for me to find the TIPS image. I look forward to everyone's comments -- Samir 07:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks.Images all need alt text as per WP:ALT. Also, I suggest moving one of the images up into the lead infobox, as this will be more likely to cause a naive reader to look at the article.Eubulides (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text added to all images. -- Samir 08:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also image added to lead infobox -- Samir 09:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead infobox's image also needs alt text. The Pathophysiology diagrams' alt text doesn't sufficiently explain appearance to a visually impaired reader; see the diagrams near the bottom of WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples. A nit: alt text typically shouldn't begin with phrases like "Image of".Eubulides (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I have placed ALT text on the schematics as: "Diagram: portal hypertension leads to splanchnic vasoconstriction, which decreases effective cirulatory volume. This leads to ascites due to renal sodium avidity and HRS due to renal vasoconstriction" and "Diagram: ascites, diuretic-resistant ascites and HRS are a spectrum. All occur in portal hypertension. Diuretic-resistance occurs with splanchnic vasodilation. When it progresses to renal vasoconstriction, HRS occurs." It is a little lengthy but explains the two images well. I have added the text: "Two part stained slide of altered cells of the liver on top labelled as alcoholic cirrhosis and cells of the kidney on the bottom labelled as being normal". Thoughts? Should the schematic ALT texts be shortened? -- Samir 18:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, if anything lengthened a bit. I adjusted them and the lead-box alt text. Thanks for the help. Eubulides (talk) 05:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Eubulides, appreciate it -- Samir 04:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks dealt with -- Samir 03:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a basic test that medical articles should pass, which I call the "Johnny test". Mom: "The doctor says that your uncle has something called hepatorenal syndrome." Johnny: What's that? Let me look it up on Wikipedia." Can Johnny get a useful answer? To some degree yes, but there's too much jargon. The first paragraph of the lead, at least, should give Johnny an overview he can understand, without jargon. How about something like this:
“
Hepatorenal syndrome (often abbreviated HRS) is a life-threatening but treatable medical condition, in which the kidneys fail to function properly as a result of cirrhosis of the liver, which may be caused by alcoholism, injury, or infection. Patients with HRS are very ill, and if untreated the condition is usually fatal. Even with treatment, less than 50% of patients survive. The only long term solution is transplantation of a new liver. The aim of treatment is to keep the patient alive until transplantation is possible, using medications, and sometimes the surgical insertion of shunt to relieve pressure on the portal vein. In some cases periodic dialysis is necessary.
”
I'm not an expert and probably got some things wrong here: I'm mainly trying to illustrate the level I believe the intro to a medical FA should aim for. Looie496 (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, needs some tweaking. Working on it, need a little but not much time. Thanks -- Samir 03:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how does the lead read now? I think it is very good personally -- Samir 06:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, concise and informative but easy to understand. Looie496 (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is an excellent and comprehensive article, but I agree with the above that the prose needs simplifying. For example, the phrase 'in the setting of' appears 8 times by my count, and sounds like doctor-speak in a way that may be off-putting to laypeople. As a minor aside, the two diagrams have jpeg jaggies; convert to SVG? Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it. Thanks Opabinia. A pleasure to see you back around. -- Samir 03:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take care of those diagrams tomorrow, if Samir won't mind. I'm surprised he didn't ask ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are the best, man! Thanks dude -- Samir 03:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still working on it, some family issues got in the way. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on the prose fixes. Samir, your vectorized versions still look a bit wonky to me - the text edges don't look clean. Is that just me? Good to be back, although it may not outlast travel next week, or the subsequent arrival of my new computer. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not your computer; it is a bit wonky here also. I'm hoping Fvasconcellos gets a chance when he is free. -- Samir 05:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will—should be done by tonight. So sorry about the delay, some RL stuff got in the way. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: sorry it has taken me a week to come and comment on this excellent article. It covers all the important aspects and I cannot detect any omissions or factual problems. I was still hoping that the following issues could be addressed:
There's a fair number of primary sources, and I'm not entirely sure if each of these is backed up by a secondary source affirming their relative prominence in the evidence food chain.
The word "Type" as in "Type 1" is capitalised. Could you clarify if this is in keeping with the WP:MOS (can't seem to find the relevant point).
Clearly, if you have HRS, you'd like to be in Barcelona. Is there a source confirming that this seems to be the world capital of ascites/HRS currently? JFW | T@lk 11:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JFW -- yes I agree we are top heavy on the primary cites. I think we reference all of the major review articles. I will tighten the citations -- need a bit of time but not too long. The "Type 1" vs. "type 1" convention is not standardized in the literature. Couldn't find anything in WP:MEDMOS. The portal hypertensive basic research, the database work on portal hypertensive complications, and the terlipressin data are all from Barcelona. The midodrine/octreotide work was from Italy (Padua) and the TIPS work is from Toronto. MARS work and the transplant data are from a number of centres. -- Samir 04:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To follow-up: (1) primary sources are now backed by one of the major review articles as secondary sources; (2) "type" has been changed to lowercase as the majority of review articles have it lowercase; (3) I can't find a reference for Barcelona as the major centre for HRS research, probably best if we do not reference that imo -- Samir 05:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, clearly ready for FA. JFW | T@lk 23:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From "Signs and symptoms": "The urine produced by individuals with HRS has a very low concentration of sodium, and typically does not contain cellular material when analyzed by microscopy. Detailed criteria for the diagnosis of HRS have been defined based on laboratory data and the clinical circumstances of the affected individual." These features are neither signs nor symptoms.
From "Causes", paragraph 2: "iatrogenic precipitants of HRS include the aggressive use of diuretic medications". Is this correct? Isn't this a cause of hypovolaemia?
From "Diagnosis", paragraph 2: "treatment with 1.5 litres of intravenous normal saline". Doesn't saline cause worsening ascites and oedema?
From "Diagnosis", paragraph 3: " there is impairment of the ability of the renal tubules to concentrate urine in ATN, leading to urine sodium measurements that are much higher than in HRS". In ATN, tubules are unable to concentrate urine. Also, the urine sodium in ATN is high; higher than in HRS. However is it correct that the impaired concentration leads to high urinary sodium?
I like the diagrams in the "Pathophysiology" section.
Regarding the photo in the "Prevention" section, it may be helpful to say that this is an endoscopic view of the inside of the oesophagus.
From "Prevention", paragraph 1: "removal of ascitic fluid may improve renal function if it decreases the pressure on the renal veins." Are you sure it's the veins, not the arteries?
Hi Axl. Thanks very much for looking things over for the article.
For signs and symptoms -- Rewritten. I have removed the urinary findings as they are rightly not signs and symptoms (and are mentioned elsewhere). I also re-wrote the last line to make the point that signs and symptoms do not make the diagnosis of HRS
Causes para 2 -- yes diuretic medications are a common trigger for the hemodynamic changes in cirrhotics that lead to HRS
Diagnosis para 2 -- yes the way to distinguish HRS from pre-renal failure is to "force" euvolemia by giving 1.5 L of NS to an affected individual (in pre-renal failure, the renal failure would improve and U Na would rise)
Diagnosis para 3 -- re-written. Agree, I worded it wrong and it was confusing before. Hopefully it reads better now.
Prevention -- yes large volume paracentesis is supposed to decrease pressure on the renal veins (arterial pressure would not be affected) leading to improved renal function. This is classic teaching handed down from Sheila Sherlock's original text on liver diseases, but there has been little work evaluating it in the recent literature. -- Samir 17:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Samir, thanks for clarifying (and educating me!). I support the application for FA status. Axl¤[Talk] 17:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will begin now to take a look and likely make some straightforward copyediting changes as I go. Please feel free to revert any that inadvertently change the meaning. I will note queries below. Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cas, appreciate it. -- Samir 05:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I am impressed - you've navigated the tightrope between medical exactness and plain english very very well! I was reduced to minor nitpicky things. It is comprehensive and I can't see any reason not to SupportCasliber (talk·contribs) 05:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review – Everything is good now. NW(Talk) 04:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Terrific thanks NW -- Samir 05:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Just for the future, when you upload images like this one, could you point your links to the exact flickr image instead of the photostream and upload the images to Commons rather than Wikipedia? Thanks, NW(Talk) 15:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Full supportwith Comments - What on earth does this mean, "The minor criteria are laboratory in nature"? And here, "Some viral infections of the liver, including hepatitis B and hepatitis C can also lead to inflammation of the glomerulus of the kidney", as far as I can tell, the reference only refers to chronic hepatitis B virus infections. And this, I think, is a mixed metaphor "Contributions by Murray Epstein cemented splanchnic vasodilation and renal vasoconstriction as hallmarks of the syndrome"— but no big deal.Graham ColmTalk 14:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Graham, I rewrote the two sentences in a clearer manner [38][39] and added the reference to a nice 2001 review of renal diseases in hepatitis C. [40] Thanks -- Samir 01:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a boring article about a boring man who did some boring things. I'm bothering with it only because I'm trying to make Premiers of Alberta into a featured topic. On the upside, the article is quite short. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the tag, it's in the public domain because its creator died more than 50 years ago (in 1938, to be exact). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least, that's why it's in the public domain in Canada. It's in the public domain in the United States because it was in the public domain in Canada as of January 1, 1996. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Another finely written article. I really only have two concerns:
The description of Stewart's relationship with UFA as being "frosty" seemed a bit odd. It's stated that he was a member of UFA, opposed their politicization, but that he still worked well with them after, and that UFA refused to run a candidate against him, or attack his government. Suddenly, as a federal minister, his relationship seems much worse, and full of ill will. There appears to be a gap here where the relationship turned sour. Or, perhaps, a little clarification that his relationship with the Farmers' government deteriorated upon becoming a federal minister?
His post-political career seems mighty thin. Is there nothing that can be said of his participation with the organizations he chaired? Or any private business ventures? Resolute 01:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To your first point, good point. Does this help? Part of the problem is that there's no source that comprehensively covers his relationship with the UFA as Premier and as federal cabinet minister: Jaques and Thomas don't deal with his federal career in any detail, while Foster and Wardhaugh don't say much about his career as Premier. Reading between the lines, I think he felt a little betrayed that the UFA sought to replace his government after he'd been so accommodating towards them. To your second point, I haven't been able to find anything, and at this point I'm not sure where to look (I'm almost certain it would have to be in primary sources of some kind). Note that by the time he left politics he was close to seventy; I surmise that he wasn't all that active post-retirement, though that's just a guess. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think on the first point, it's the word "remained" that I object to. It implies a degradation of a relationship that isn't explained beforehand. Probably just changing it to "his relationship with the UFA was frosty..." As to the second, I can't imagine the needle in a haystack that searching through newspapers would be, with the possible exception of checking after the date of his death for an obit that might add more. It is an odd section though. In short, it says "Stewart sat on two councils then died" in the first paragraph, while the second is a one sentence rehash of the entire article. Now THAT is summary style! ;) Resolute 03:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced "remained" with "were", and inserted one more sentence (literally the only one I could find in any of my sources) in the section on his later life. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm satisfied with the article's quality and comprehensiveness. All images are PD, references look good to me. Resolute 03:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sources: all sources look good. Brianboulton (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not happy yet. Examples from the top:
MOSLINK recommends that major countries such as Canada/ian not be linked.
Fixed.
as his replacement. And another causality that is wrongly used as intransitive: "the UFA politicized during Stewart's premiership". (was policitized?)
Fixed.
Consider a new sentence for "When Sifton ...". I'm picking up a slightly tendency to overuse semicolons where a stop might normally be used. I say this even though I'm a supporter of semicolon use. See "; even so".
I have been known to average more than one semicolon per sentence; I'll do a cull.
"Unable to match the UFA's appeal to rural voters, Stewart was defeated at the polls and resigned as premier." Does that mean he was personally defeated in his electorate, or his government was defeated? Isn't resignation as premier a foregone conclusion in either case?
Clarified that it was his government that was defeated. And no, resignation as Premier is not foregone - see Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon MacKenzie King's decision to remain Prime Minister after losing the 1925 election, for example. In a Westminster Parliamentary system, the Premier remains Premier until he/she either resigns or is defeated in a parliamentary confidence vote. While it's customary to opt to resign after losing an election (the assumption often being that defeat in a confidence vote would be imminent), it's not automatic. Moreover, it was still less a foregone conclusion in this case, since there was thought that Stewart might lead the new UFA government (which I didn't think warranted a mention in the lead, but which is covered quite thoroughly later one).
"an agreement that transferred control of Alberta's natural resources from Ottawa to the provincial government"—silliest thing the federal government EVER did.
Sorry, I'm feeling dim - I'm rereading this, but I'm not sure that I see the problem.
It was a meta-comment: Alberta hogs the lion's share of oil-shale revenue, which many people feel should be shared more equitably through the dominion.
"in 1935, so too was Stewart"—clarify here that he lost his seat.
Who was Macdonald? Suddenly he bounds into the text ...
Hamiltonstone addressed this.
Causality treated awkwardly again: "After marrying Sneath, he converted to her Church of England faith.". Sounds forcible.
Not certain that I agree here.
Sorry, I misread it as "converted her to". It's fine.
Ref 1 repeated six times in a row in one para, having made five consecutive appearances in the previous para. Then 3, 3, 3. Can you attend to these repetitions throughout? Better one ref number at para's end, unless there are particularly contentious statements during the para that need to be specifically marked. (But they're mostly trivial.)
My own view is (obviously) in line with Hamiltonstone's. I think dense referencing helps guard against the tendency for new material of uncertain provenance being added. Using a single reference per paragraph makes it easy for unreferenced material to be added to that paragraph while appearing to be supported by the reference at paragraph's end. Since reviewers are divided on this question, I'll hold off on making any change until consensus develops.
Dense referencing is no such guard against subsequent insertions that are not attributable to the source. So sentences 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 have a [1], [1], [1], [1], [1], [1], and senctence 2 has no ref? You still have to check periodically, and as a FA you'd have it on your watchlist. What the density does do is clutter the text and irritate the reader. I strongly suggest that you ration the boring repetitions of the ref number to one or two, placed possibly at the end of one of the more important sentences during the para, and at the end (usually, one at the end is preferable, unless it's a long para or has a contentious statement within it). This is a signal to the reader that everything in the para is attributable to that source, as a default. Please have a look at a few other FAs to see how it's done. Like overlinking, over referencing makes the text look unprofessional. WP's editors are expected to exercise judgement here, in the normal practice of academic/research text, rather than slavishly covering their asses by plastering numbers after every single sentence.
OK, if this is a sticking point, Steve I'm happy to defer to Tony's greater experience with these things. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I've now removed all consecutive instances of identical references in the same paragraph. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"in which he defeated Conservative William John Blair handily"—the last word is colloquial. "easily defeated".
Fixed.
Needs an independent copy-edit throughout. Referencing needs scrutiny for tedious reps. Tony(talk) 14:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've arranged for a copyedit from User:Roux; hopefully it will meet with your approval. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments leaning tosupport
Excellent scope, structure and good general style.
The range of sources seems a little narrow for someone who appears to have been quite a high profile figure, but it may represent all the sound scholarly material available.
It does. For context, during this period Alberta's population was well under a million, so Stewart headed the government of an entity that, population-wise, was the size of a small city. Moreover, provincial premiers during this era, in contrast to now, were figures of relatively minor importance, since it was only the advent of the welfare state (during which government spending on areas of provincial responsibility, such as education and health, increased radically) that elevated them to effective full partners in Confederation. He has never been the subject of a book-length biography, and the material available on his premiership is in line with comparable figures. I was surprised not to find more on his federal role, but I've done a thorough survey of the material available about the King ministry and Stewart barely figures in most of it. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some copyediting in early parts, but have to stop now - I only hope they are improvements rather than the opposite. I'm not of the same view as Tony, though: I favour dense referencing, even if it is the same ref. If the article gets sliced and diced, that way the refs stay with the material they source - not so likely to be the case if one has one cite at the end of the para. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. Your work definitely improved the article, though it added a semicolon to an already semicolon-dense piece of work. I might revert your change in wording from "insurgent Liberal" to "rival" as it pertains to Boyle, since the latter wording implies to me a greater relationship between Stewart and Boyle than actually existed. I'm mulling it over. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reveting that is fine. Other points:
I copyedited the intro to railways para, but it has a problem - the rest of the para doesn't actually explicitly mention Stewart's role. The people clamoured for their railways, then a bunch of business stuff happened. Where is Stewart in this? Also in same section "drainage of northern areas" lacks context. Are we talking swamps, snow melt, sewerage for towns? Is this readily (and briefly) able to be rephrased for more clarity?
To the first point, assuming you're talking about the first paragraph of "Party division", it's intended to set the stage for the rest of the section. The Liberals of 1917 were a house divided for reasons essentially unrelated to Stewart, and those reasons need to be explained if his Premiership is to be understood (his minor role in the railway scandal is covered earlier, under "Earlier political career"). To the second, the wikilinked article states that "Many agricultural soils need drainage to improve production or to manage water supplies", which is what we're talking about here (I presume that snow melt would be the major cause, along with rain). I could specify "agricultural drainage", if you think that would help. Otherwise, I'm open to alternative wordings. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, I wasn't clear enough. The problem is the first para after the heading 'public works'. The railways stuff just isn't linked to Stweart, other than saying it occurred during his premiership. Unless it somehow actually involved him, it probably isn't notable for this article, and if did involve him, we should hear about how. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, that should have been obvious. I've inserted his name in there to add some clarity to the connection, but ultimately any action of the government is attributable to the premier, even if he's not specifically mentioned. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, for some reason i hadn't grasped that the government was acting to intervene in purchasing the company. The insertion of the time has triggered some understanding. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know when Stewart joined UFA?
No - we can infer that it was between 1909 and 1919, but that's as good as it gets. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the UFA was not satisfied with the government's record: in 1918, it found that.." The "it found that" sounds odd in this particular context. "it claimed that", or "it argued that" might be better, depending on the detail.
Addressed. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Though he emphatically denied that there would be an election in the spring of 1921 (the last one had been held in June 1917, and four years was the normal life of a legislature in Canada), Stewart eventually called one for July 19". Huh? July isn't in spring - this sounds like it was right on schedule. What have i missed?
The "Though" is probably misleading. I've reworded a bit - see what you think. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Lakeland College historian Franklin Foster, in his biography of John Edward Brownlee,..." This is the first mention of Brownlee, so we need to know who he is (ie. why would this be relevant to Stewart?) As this will lengthen the sentence, I suggest a full stop before "Lakeland College historian..."
Clarified. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice ending.
I'm a supporter of promotion to FA once the above issues are dealt with. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's better, but I still see things that need tweaking, apart from the over-referencing. (I removed a few from the top, and now I see Cite Errors in the Notes: sorry, can you fix? And was there some way of doing it better?)
"Newly-politicized" – see MoS on hyphens.
Somebody seems to have gotten this. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist)
"It has been my fight ever since I became a minister to see that the farmers of the province were having a square deal," he remarked, – MoS requires the comma to be after the closing quotation marks (unless the comma is actually in the source.
The comma is part of the quotation. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bit unusual not to put "p." or "pp." plus space, before the page numbers in the Notes. I support I can live with it.
"As MLA" table: a reason to repeat "Turnour N.A." for each one? It's kind of crowded already.
Link to "Jasper—Edson". You'd put it out of its misery by moving it to a new title with an en dash. The em dash is wrong, and looks very odd.
Steve (User:Steve, that is) seems to have taken care of this. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Born in Ontario, he had moved west for economic opportunity, become an important political voice in an emerging province, and then gone to Ottawa to be that province's national voice. As Mackenzie King eulogized him, "in more respects than one, Mr. Stewart's career mirrored the development of Canada itself."—By the time you get to "gone", you've lost the sense of "had", don't you agree? I think here the "had" needs to be repeated twice. But on a larger structural scale, the last, short para doesn't seem to belong here: it's not about the title (Post-political life), but is rather a summary of his entire career – better in the lead, if at all. Why not insert Mackenzie King's statement in the lead, too? But I don't think we should have to go to the physical source to work out what King meant: what were these several respects? If you have it at hand, please consider explicating them in a brief list within the sentence.
I thought the last para was a bit short, so i'm happy with the suggestion about giving it slightly more detail. But as to it being in the wrong place, i don't agree. I think a lot of WP articles, including high-quality ones, suffer from a lack of a sense of an ending - something particularly appropriate in bios. Take the last para away and one loses the poetry of the ending, and a great quote from King. And I think the King quote really has added meaning coming after the other rather unkind opinions we are provided, that King expressed in his diary - an effect that would be lost were this material moved to the lead. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hamiltonstone about the paragraph's location, for essentially his/her reasons. In addition, the quote's from a eulogy, which it does make some sense to place in the same part of the article as the death. As for what the respects were, that's what I was trying to get at with the first paragraph of the sentence: Stewart was born in one of Confederation's original provinces, moved west at a time when encouraging western immigration was among the federal government's major priorities, took the leadership of Alberta when it was emerging as important, and joined the federal government where he played a role in placing it on the same plane, constitutionally, as the other provinces (with regards to natural resources). Admittedly, this relies on the reader being somewhat acquainted with Canadian history. I could spell all of this out, and it would expand the paragraph, but it might be a bit much for something that's only tangentially related. Thoughts? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this will be worthy of promotion when fixed. Tony(talk) 09:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support and comments A nice article about a boring man, but it wouldn't be FAC without a few nitpicks (:
came west to Alberta where are you? I'd prefer went
the pair would have eight children maybe the pair would eventually have eight children? - you can ignore this
Could you check that every "however" has a useful function and isn't just padding?
I had the same problem interpreting the final paragraph. Would changing the order of the two sentences help, so we can see the context first?
I shall think about Charlie when I need to sleep... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, and I'm glad to have cured your insomnia. I've changed "came" to the more perspective-neutral "moved", and removed one of the howevers. I'm going to need to think more about the last paragraph. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 15:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworked the last paragraph, but I'm not really crazy about the result. Thoughts from all who have expressed views on the subject (and indeed from anyone else) welcome. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well I really liked it. That was the kind of shape I thought it should have, so: well done. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meet FA criteria. Although this is a relatively short article, it's comprehensive of the entire storm, including the large difference between warning centers. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I like this article pretty much, but there is one thing that I can see right now that might cause some problems. When you do the difference among warning centers, you say: The Japan Meteorological Agency uses 10-minute sustained winds, while the Joint Typhoon Warning Center uses 1-minute sustained winds.[12] The conversion factor between the two is 1.14.[13] JMA's peak intensity for Faxai was 100 km/h (65 mph) 10-minute sustained, or 120 km/h (75 mph) 1-minute sustained.[2][13] The JTWC's peak intensity for Faxai was 75 km/h (45 mph) 1-minute sustained, or 65 km/h (40 mph) 10-minute sustained.[14][13]. That seems good, but with the conversions between 10 and 1-min winds are the problem. The JMA only reports in 10-min winds and the JTWC only reports in 1-min winds so would that be OR? --Anhamirak 02:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
→ "This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived." –Juliancolton | Talk 02:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support Anhamirak; the quick reply from JC; and the source check Ealdgyth. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - The two public domain images are fine. Could you please complete the licensing migration for File:JMA Faxai 2007 track.png? Thanks, NW(Talk) 00:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the image review, I'm a bit confused as to what I need to do exactly for the track map though. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think NuclearWarfare meant to tag the image for relicense to CC-BY-3.0, which I did. --anoddname 11:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, AnOddName got it. Sorry I missed this earlier, but thanks for doing that for me. NW(Talk) 02:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since I made that pic, I switched it to the proper license ({{PD-self}}). Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Theres nothing missing from the MH, Impact or Preps and it looks good.Jason Rees (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDone; thanks.Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. I added alt text to the lead image, to help you get started. Eubulides (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A Japan Airlines flight heading to Narita Airport"
"The storm traveled towards the northwest under"
Link and maybe spell out UTC on its first appearance in prose.
"The JTWC also began issuing advisories on Faxai"-->The JTWC also issued advisories on Faxai
"Around that time, the JMA upgraded Faxai to a severe tropical storm with winds reaching 95 km/h (60 mph 10-minute sustained)." The noun + -ing construction is awkward; see this excellent guide on how to fix it.
"In the following advisory issued by the JTWC, however, they upgraded the depression to a tropical storm based on the development of a well-defined central dense overcast." Why "however"? Is this a stark contrast to what might be expected?
No link for "sustained winds"?
"All Nippon Airways cancelled all day flights between Tokyo and the Izu Islands"
"Areas around Tokyo were notified about heavy rains" "about"-->of the
"Residents were advised to stay indoors during the storm, especially after sunset, avoid possible flying debris." Is there a missing word? "especially after sunset, avoid possible flying debris" sounds strange.
Spell out JST
"The rainfall in Miyakejima came close to surpassing the record daily rainfall for October 27." "came close to surpassing"-->almost surpassed
"Damages from cyclone totaled to "
"Three crew members had neck injures, one of whom also was cut in her thigh."-->Three crew members sustained neck injures, and one was also cut in her thigh. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support but "Differences among warning centers" seems to be too small. It either needs some of the information about the differences moved down, or to just have the heading removed and be part of the previous section. I say this simply because it aesthetically puts forth a breach between two sections that seem to be close together. Two or three sentences from the last paragraph of the previous section could be pulled down if you want to preserve the "Differences" section. Also, the line "took off from Hangzhou Xiaoshan International Airport and was heading to Narita International Airport," could simply be put "Airport, heading to Narita International Airport,". The "and" distracts from the purpose of the sentence. "was hit in the head" By what? The woman? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done with most of that, aside from your final comment, which I'll leave to the nominator to sort out. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not thrilled with the prose.OK now; I've made a few little tweaks; do watch your omission of "to" or other little grammatical words in long sentences in which two clauses are joined by "and"—here, the fix was grammatical to convey the causality more smoothly. If you're to continue to present nominations, can you take steps to tighten it up, and/or to work with good writers on articles?
Which ENGVAR is it? I see "travelled" and "traveled".
"One woman sustained serious injures, and five others received minor injuries."—No male was injured?
Probably remove "also" in the lead, as redundant, and join the two sentences with a semicolon ("injuries; the plane").
"($1.5 million USD)." Is that the correct placement of the currency signifier? You can probably dispense with "US" as the international default—check MOSNUM. And the D is definitely redundant. Why link it? And there it is further down, linked as well ...
"Three crew members sustained neck injures, and one was also cut in her thigh."—last clause a bit weird (sounds like chicken for lunch).
"esidents were advised to stay indoors during the storm, especially after sunset, and avoid possible flying debris." Probably "to" before "avoid". Tony(talk) 03:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned up these examples, and will try to preform a more thorough copyedit in the morning. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, 1a. The prose quality is fine, but it isn't "engaging, even brilliant". Rather, it's quite dull. It's researched from a handful of meteorological reports, most or all of which should be considered primary sources. From a brief search in ProQuest Newspapers, this storm doesn't appear to have made news an any English-language sources other than a blurb in London's Independent. As such, I'm not even convinced that it meets notability guidelines for having its own article, unless you can produce evidence that secondary sources, English or otherwise, covered it. --Andy Walsh(talk) 18:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how they could be considered primary sources to be honest; it's not like the storm self-published. That said, the article definitely meets notability requirements, both by WP:WPTC and Wikipedia-wide standards, but notability issues are irrelevant to FAC. I don't think there's really anything we can do about its dullness. Personally, I find the article fascinating, but to each his own. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are primary sources because they are first-hand data written by people who are paid to record it. By nature, limited prose can be written from them, and no analysis, interpretation, or critical commentary is possible. This is where the dullness comes from—we have essentially a weather report in article form. It's short because no English-language media covered it. To compare, would you accept an article about a crime that was written entirely from the police reports or court documents? No. It would be dry and, likely, not comprehensive. --Andy Walsh(talk) 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Last time i checked the Independent and Bloomberg were English-language media so that takes out "It's short because no English-language media covered it." Also as JC said it passes all the notability critera for WP with secondry sources. Jason Rees (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was hyperbole. I acknowledged The Independent above; the blurb is 62 words. I'm still not convinced this even meets general WP notability requirements. And Julian, notability is indeed relevant at FAC. From the criteria page: "In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes." --Andy Walsh(talk) 19:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify: Notability is not my only, or even primary concern. --Andy Walsh(talk) 19:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The storm is notable, it killed one person and caused $1.5 million in damages. It definitely has enough sources to make it notable. Since notability is not your primary concern, can you clarify on what your primary concern (quibble in this case) with the article is? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quibble? At any rate, my primary concern is that the sources are almost entirely primary, making this little more than a re-hash of weather reports. As such, it's lacking any analysis, interpretation of data and events, or commentary. Also, I can't take your word for it that the storm is notable. For these two reasons, secondary sources are needed to balance out all the primary sources. --Andy Walsh(talk) 21:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that is bad how? It makes all the information in the article reliable. I'm a bit confused as to how the secondary sources are needed, what do you mean by balance out? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have a policy here entitled Wikipedia:No original research. From it: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." The page is thorough in its explanation of why we don't rely on primary sources. --Andy Walsh(talk) 21:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out in response to Laser brain's snide attacks on my support on my talk page, FAC is not about notability concerns. Therefore, mentioning notability at FAC is inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
← I'm genuinely confused. Staff writers at news agencies are paid to cover news events. Does that make the Associated Press a primary source? –Juliancolton | Talk 22:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's no matter, I've withdrawn my opposition. Have fun. --Andy Walsh(talk) 22:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for this article, I changed the BT link to the ATCR which is easier to read and understand. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS Although I'm not opposing, I do note that this article is on the small side for a FA. I urge those in the storm project to identify more meaty storms for working up to nomination. Tony(talk) 09:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with comment: After my and others' actionable concerns have been addressed, I'm fairly certain this meets the FA criteria. I sympathize with Andy's (Laser brain's) comments to a degree. Notability and whether a certain article "deserves" to be an FA are valid but messy issues that have arisen several times. However, the truth of the matter is that bare bones meteorology (basically what this article is) is not interesting for many, and when you aren't interested, the article won't engage you no matter how well-written it is. Although "brilliant" prose is part of the criteria, if there's nothing that can be done to address the problem, then we just have to accept that and make the article as good as we can in all other respects. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat-involved support - I feel Dabomb87 hit the proverbial nail on the head. Granted, I'm familiar with the text to an extent where I an unable to identify any issues, but I'm confident it meets the criteria. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article has received quite a lot of work, and I think it's ready for FA status. Most of the preparation was done several months ago, though then I held off nominating for a variety of reasons. I am satisfied the important points about this figure's life are now covered in reasonable depth, while the article has benefitted from the copy-editing and review talents of several other users, most notably Malleus Fatuorum (talk·contribs), Ealdgyth (talk·contribs) and Hamiltonstone (talk·contribs). You will note that the interesting but dubious saga-material about this figure has been included but not incorporated into the article by placement in text boxes. This is a good solution to the problem this poses, while it follows a growing convention in mainstream history writing to make use of such boxes (after the manner of Norman Davies) for such purposes. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review:
File:Edward the Confessor 1042 1066.jpg is in the public domain one way or another, but my thought is that as a reproduction of what is effectively a two dimensional work it should be tagged differently, as User:PHGCOM may not have had any rights to it in the first place to release into the public domain.
Disagree with image review. The object is not two-dimensional. I had an image of a 4000 year-old shallow bas relief rejected as not PD-old because it was deemed to be 3-D and therefore the photographer's copyright, which seems bizarre, but technically the photo is the uploader's copyright to dispose of. jimfbleak (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether the threshold of creativity is met in photographing a work. For that purpose, I can't see how either a coin or a shallow bas relief would be considered as three dimensional. Do you happen to have a link to the discussion where this occurred? Anyway, it's public domain one way or another, so this isn't a huge deal, but I'd like to make sure the tagging's done right. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, okay then. Striking this issue. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:EmpireNorth.JPG is derived from File:Cnut 1014 1035.jpg, which is tagged as being in the public domain in all jurisdictions in which copyright term is life of author plus seventy years, but the file has no information on the lifespan of the author (it's also unclear whether William R. Shepherd is the cartographer of that map, or the editor of the atlas, or what).Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
William R. Shepherd died in 1934 and appears to have been the cartographer and author, so still scrapes in the 70 year limit jimfbleak (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image in question isn't a big deal to the article. Just there to nice it up. I can easily replace it with another. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although the concern has been stricken, the explanation that Shepherd died in 1934 and scrapes the 70 year pma is not correct. Shepherd is American and the atlas is an American publication; by US copyrights, publication date is the primary criteria. Luckily, the map in question was published at least as early as 1911 (allowing hosting on Wikipedia). A German company (its country of origin) holds the copyright, but they have never identified authorship, hence allowing the assertion of {{Anonymous-EU}}. Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments (minor: expect to switch to support)Support
This article has developed well, since its already good standard when I reviewed it at GAN.
That is a fabulous "sources and background" section.
2)...that Siward's attack may be interpreted in the context of royal aggression". Can this be more explicit in some way - is the point that Siward's attack may have been an action undertaken on behalf of his king against a rebellious Eadulf? My point is to go beyond saying "in the context of" and explain that Siward was siding with one against the other - if I have read this correctly, of course!
3)"The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle relates that Siward had to call up reinforcements, but despite this, King Edward was successful..." The phrase "but despite this" here leads us to expect that, despite using reinforcements, Siward was unsuccessful. Better I think would be: "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle relates that, although Siward had to call up reinforcements, the campaign against Earl Godwine was successful and led to his temporary banishment."
4)"dating to 1053 x 1055". I'm not familiar with this symbol - what is being denoted here, a date range?
5)"...Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, recension D:" There's that word again :-) Have you considered using the word "version", but wikilinking it to the entry on recension?
6)The very last para of this section on the "Expedition against the Scots" seems out of place (the one beginning "The Annals of Lindisfarne and Durham, written in the early 12th-century..."). This seems a discussion of the event that belongs near the start of the section, rather than after the analysis that precedes it. But I may be wrong.
7)"Siward died more than a decade before the death of Edward the Confessor, but despite this the Domesday Book recorded ..." I'm afraid as an ignorant person, I didn't get why this was "despite" anything. Something to do with chronology of events?
8)I work on two different computer monitors. On one the text in the text boxes is small but (just) readable; on the other it is literally too tiny to form legible letters. Add to that the possibility of a vision-impaired (not blind) user, and I wonder if something can be done about the text box character size? I realise this may create a layout issue, particularly for the long passage under "Emergence and rise to power under Cnut", and it may be that that passage would be best edited in some way. It is a colourful story, but not the shortest of extracts.
1) Wikipedia article take their names after certain conventions. In articles of this nature and time period, these are hardly ever the best for the text of articles, thus I find it that I mostly use redirects or pipes. "Uhtred the Bold" is his nickname and probably how he is best known. Maybe that article should be renamed, maybe it shouldn't, but I just thought it made more sense to call him Uhtred the Bold in this Northumbrian context than "Uhtred of Bamburgh". Not a biggie though.
I musn't have made myself clear. I am happy with Uhtred the Bold, it just wasn't wikilinked at all. Don't want you to change the name in the article, piping is good. I just wanted a link. I ran a search and didn't find it earlier in the article. Did I miss one? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2) reworded
3) reworded. The "despite this" was used for "despite having needed to call up reinforcements, Siward's side still won"
4) this "x" is used by historians to indicate that something cannot be dated to a specific year. Here "1053 x 1055" means [dates to] some point between 1053 and 1055 [inclusive].
Suggest change to "between 1053 and 1055". hamiltonstone (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5) Recension is the standard terminology in relation to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. It is less ambiguous than "version". Actually, rendering it "version" might be thought misleading. I think if someone's gonna ponder the point, rather than just skim over it, it is worth learning the meaning of the word. Learning the English language is after all a life-long experience. While I don't ever support making things unnecessarily obscure, the rough meaning of "version" will surely be picked up from the context.
6) I will rework this later, probably using a new source (Aird, Normans and St Cuthbert)
7) The Domeday book records property owners and the values of property 1) on the day of King Edwards death and 2) in 1086. Thus, if Siward died ten years before Edward, he wasn't alive on the day of Edward's death. I added the date 1066 to make the contradiction clearer
8) Adjusted. Had to merge two paragraphs, but this worked out ok.
Cheers for the comments. I drop a note here when I'm done with 6). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I trust you will deal with 6 and my minor other points, and have switched to support. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, done. I think I've addressed the remaining points. Take a look and judge for thyself. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Support - Much improved. The article currently has many problems. The largest being poor phrasing and organisation. Explanations throughout the article seem confusing and badly ordered.
The Lead: Is confusing, concentrates too much on naming, and doesn't mention Siwards legacy or connection with York. It also fails to emphasise Siward's power as a man who ruled much of England and was capable of defeating kings. Looking at individual sections:
Siward or Sigurd (Old English: Sigeweard) was an earl in 11th-century northern England. The Old Norse nickname Digri ("the Stout") and Latin translation Grossus ("the Fat") are given to him by near-contemporary texts.[1] The English name Siward or Sigeweard was cognate to the single Old Norse name written variously as Sigvarðr and Sigurðr.
Far too much detail on naming for the lead. The last sentence is not needed, and if Grossus is a translation of Digri, why do we need two different English translations?
Siward's origins and early life, covered by some saga-like tales, is obscure to historians.
Mixed tenses and do we need this at all? it tells us almost nothing.
Probably of Scandinavian origin, perhaps a member of Earl Ulf's kindred,
We have no idea who Earl Ulf is, and he doesn't seem important anyway. Just confuses.
Siward emerged as a powerful regional strongman in England during the reign of Cnut (1016–1035). Cnut was a Scandinavian ruler who conquered England in the 1010s, and Siward was one of the many Scandinavians who came to England in the aftermath of that conquest.
This information is presented back to front, which again confuses the reader. FIRST say Siward came to England with Cnut, then say how he became a strongman. Also, why not say that Cnut is "King Canute"? He is still far better known by this name.
By 1033 Siward was in control of what is now Yorkshire, governing southern Northumbria as earl on Cnut's behalf. Siward's entrenched his position in northern England by marrying Ælfflæd, the daughter of Ealdred, Earl of Bamburgh.
Again, confusing. Would be better as: "..Siward was in control of southern Northumbria, that is, present-day Yorkshire, governing as earl on Cnut's behalf."
After killing a different Earl of Bamburgh in 1041, Siward gained control of all Northumbria. He exerted his power in support of Kings Harthacnut and Edward, assisting them with vital military support and counsel.
"a different Earl of Bambrugh"? That just adds to confusion. "Ealdred's successor as Earl of Bamburgh" would be better. Or "a subsequent Earl of Bambrugh". Also "support" is used twice in the last sentence. Also the sentence doesn't explain who Kings Harthacnut and Edward were - ie. successor Kings of England after Canute. they could be kings of other countries, as written.
Sources and background. Should be split. Sources section is too long and impenetrable, and will put people off reading the rest of the article. The background section itself needs re-organising into a more logical sequence. At the moment it is bitty, jumping from subject to subject in no chronological order, and interspersing explanations of what a thegn and ealdorman was.
Ancestry. Far too long and confusing. Less is more here. All it needs is the boxed text, a brief explanation and mention of the fact that some others had similar ancestral claims.
Career under Cnut, Harold and Harthacnut. Starts with a long recount of a story, which is already in box text and which you admit is fanciful. This needs to be cut. The section on Eril of Lathr is very confusing and over-long. The rest of the historical account also needs a lot of work, copy-editing and making it clearer. Names are often dropped in without explanation of who they are or what their importance is. And important events are not sufficiently explained. An example is:
Cnut died in 1035, while his son Harthacnut remained in Scandinavia. As Harthacnut was geographically unable to take the crown for himself in good time, Harold Harefoot was able to take the kingdom for himself. Although he successfully resisted trouble from the exiled sons of Ethelred the Unready — Alfred Ætheling and Edward (later known as King Edward the Confessor) — Harold died just as Harthacnut was preparing an invasion.[43] Harthacnut reigned in England only two years before he himself died and was peacefully succeeded by Edward in 1042.[44] Frank Barlow speculated on Siward's position during this period, guessing that Siward assumed "a position of benevolent or prudent neutrality".
This does not say how long Harefoot was in control or the date of Harthacnut's take-over. The passage could be better written something like "When Cnut died in 1035, there were a number of rival claimants for his throne. These included his son, Hathacnut, and the nobleman Harold Harefoot, as well as Alfred Ætheling and Edward (later, King Edward the Confessor), the exiled sons of Ethelred the Unready. Isolated in Scandinavia, Harthacnut was unable to prevent Harold Harefoot seizing the crown for himself, however Harefoot died in ....etc.
Another example: The section "Expedition against the Scots" has this passage:
The origin of Siward's conflict with the Scots is unclear. According to the Libellus de Exordio, in 1039 or 1040—a year before Siward attacked and killed Eadulf—the Scottish king Donnchad mac Crínáin attacked northern Northumbria and besieged Durham. Within a year, Mac Bethad had deposed killed (sic) Donnchad.
Is Eadulf the Scottish king, or Donnchad mac Crínáin? In fact Eadulf was last mentioned two full sections above this one. Introducing him here, without his title or any context is very confusing. If there is a linkage between the killing of the Duke of Bamburgh and the Scottish invasion, it should be spelled out. Again if Mac bethad killed the person who attacked Northumbria, why is this a reason to attack him? It is unclear.
Why is Saint Olave's Church, York, referred to in the article, without explanation as "Galmanho"? Xandar 01:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Lead: Is confusing, concentrates too much on naming, and doesn't mention Siwards legacy or connection with York. It also fails to emphasise Siward's power as a man who ruled much of England and was capable of defeating kings. Looking at individual sections:
This is valid I think. I've reworked it, though I don't know how you want me to fit York in. I can't think of a way. :(
We have no idea who Earl Ulf is, and he doesn't seem important anyway. Just confuses
Earl Ulf is introduced in the text. The article summary in the lead links him. And yes, he is important as his kin-group is the strongest one in Denmark after Cnut's own, and indeed his descendants (as pointed out in the text) ruled Denmark after Cnut. :)
Far too much detail on naming for the lead. The last sentence is not needed, and if Grossus is a translation of Digri, why do we need two different English translations
Hmm ... the normal translations of both words aren't identical, but I think it's fair to say that Grossus here means "stout" more than "corpulent", so I've merged the translations to avoid the possible confusion you rightly point out.
Mixed tenses and do we need this at all? it tells us almost nothing.
Don't see that. Yes, I wouldn't have written it in if we didn't.
This information is presented back to front, which again confuses the reader. FIRST say Siward came to England with Cnut, then say how he became a strongman. Also, why not say that Cnut is "King Canute"? He is still far better known by this name.
We don't know that Siward came to England with Cnut. His first appearance in reliable sources comes when he is already a regional strongman. Put King Canute in brackets btw.
"a different Earl of Bambrugh"? That just adds to confusion. "Ealdred's successor as Earl of Bamburgh" would be better. Or "a subsequent Earl of Bambrugh". Also "support" is used twice in the last sentence. Also the sentence doesn't explain who Kings Harthacnut and Edward were - ie. successor Kings of England after Canute. they could be kings of other countries, as written.
Yep, I agree. Fixed this.
Sources and background. Should be split. Sources section is too long and impenetrable, and will put people off reading the rest of the article. The background section itself needs re-organising into a more logical sequence. At the moment it is bitty, jumping from subject to subject in no chronological order, and interspersing explanations of what a thegn and ealdorman was.
I split this. I don't see the problem with the sources section. Could you elaborate? The explanations of earl and thegn are there because another reviewer asked me to put them there. I don't really know what to do; removing it might cause the other reviewer displeasure. I think the order in the background section is otherwise fine and logical: one para for England of the time and one specific to Northumbria. That makes sense ... no?
Ancestry. Far too long and confusing. Less is more here. All it needs is the boxed text, a brief explanation and mention of the fact that some others had similar ancestral claims.
OK. Trimmed it.
Career under Cnut, Harold and Harthacnut. Starts with a long recount of a story, which is already in box text and which you admit is fanciful. This needs to be cut. The section on Eril of Lathr is very confusing and over-long.
I've put most of the in-article stuff here into the footnote.
The rest of the historical account also needs a lot of work, copy-editing and making it clearer. Names are often dropped in without explanation of who they are or what their importance is. And important events are not sufficiently explained. An example is: ... This does not say how long Harefoot was in control or the date of Harthacnut's take-over. The passage could be better written something like "When Cnut died in 1035, there were a number of rival claimants for his throne. These included his son, Hathacnut, and the nobleman Harold Harefoot, as well as Alfred Ætheling and Edward (later, King Edward the Confessor), the exiled sons of Ethelred the Unready. Isolated in Scandinavia, Harthacnut was unable to prevent Harold Harefoot seizing the crown for himself, however Harefoot died in ....etc.
I've fixed this a little, and incorporated your suggested rephrasing. Regarding name dropping ... what names to you feel need more detail to be helpful?
Is Eadulf the Scottish king, or Donnchad mac Crínáin? In fact Eadulf was last mentioned two full sections above this one. Introducing him here, without his title or any context is very confusing. If there is a linkage between the killing of the Duke of Bamburgh and the Scottish invasion, it should be spelled out. Again if Mac bethad killed the person who attacked Northumbria, why is this a reason to attack him? It is unclear.
There is no known linkage between the two events. This suggestive [subliminal] style--common in historical writing-- is one I'm fond of, works better if you follow the story. It was quite easy to change this though, and I have done so. This should be a more explicit read now.
Why is Saint Olave's Church, York, referred to in the article, without explanation as "Galmanho"?
Usually a church has two names, one of the saint and one of the place. E.g. St Paul's Cathedral is also London Cathedral (though that's ambiguous now). Should have just written "St Olaf's at Galmanho", which is what I've done now.
The changes you've made so far are a big improvement. Some issues remain though. I haven't time to do a thorough run through now. I will get back with more detailed responses, hopefully tomorrow. Xandar 23:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are still quite a few problems with the prose. I may make a few smaller corrections myself, rather than list everything here, and you can see what you make of them. As to my read through:
Lead
It might be useful to add something like: "Several historic sites in the English city of York have connections with Siward."
Sources
"non-representative" - why not "unrepresentative"?
"annalistic" Confusing word. Why not "annal-style"?
"compilations of John of Worcester (compiled between 1124 and 1140)," Compiled used twice.
Background
"Beginning in the reign of Cnut, and lasting through Harold Harefoot and Harthacnut into the reign of Edward the Confessor, Siward's career in northern England spanned the reigns of four different monarchs." Would read better as something like: "Siward's career in northern England spanned the reigns of four different monarchs. It began during the reign of Cnut, and lasted through those of Harold Harefoot and Harthacnut into the early years of Edward the Confessor."
"poor hereditary links to the West Saxon royal house". "weak" links might be better.
"In England, it fell to a handful of newly promoted "ealdormen" or "earls".[12] An ealdorman was an Anglo-Saxon official who ruled a territory, usually a shire or group of shires, on behalf of the king. The term was, by Cnut's reign, interchangeable with the Scandinavian word earl, which supplanted the former by the end of the 11th-century." Too much digression to explain word-meaning breaks up the narrative of this passage. I would suggest:
"In England, it fell to a handful of newly promoted "ealdormen" or "earls ".[12] An ealdorman was an Anglo-Saxon official who ruled a territory, usually a shire or group of shires, on behalf of the king. The term was, by Cnut's reign, interchangeable with the Scandinavian word earl, which supplanted the former by the end of the 11th-century"
"(though there were other earls)" This bracket phrase is ugly and probably unnecessary.
Ancestry
"Historians generally claim Siward to be of Scandinavian origin, something supported by the Vita Ædwardi Regis which says Siward was "[called] Digri in the Danish tongue" (Danica lingua Digara)" Better to say "which states that" rather than "which says".
Career under Cnut, Harold and Harthacnut
"There is little known about Siward's arrival in England," This is very vague. Why not put the more specific; "The exact date of Siward's arrival in England is unknown."
Thank you! All good suggestions, and I have implemented them. I did add "and context" to "The exact date of Siward's arrival in England is unknown", as more than just date was meant, and the next piece about the Vita Waldevi wouldn't make sense otherwise. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I think we've dealt with most of these points. I've also made some clean-up edits to the article - which is actually easier than listing all the points here. Whilst doing this I noticed two very vague sentences:
In the English affairs under Edward the Confessor section: "Besides the help of their retinues, this act was carried out on the "advise" of the three earls." I'm not sure what this means? The retinues were the armies? We already know they joined in the attack. "advise"?? Does this mean "advice". or something else? Why the quotation marks?
In the Death and legacy section: "This, or something else about Siward's career, made the Anglo-Saxonist Frank Stenton declare him "not a statesman, but a Danish warrior of the primitive type." Again very vague. If there is no connection its probably best not to try to force a link with the previous passage, and just use Stenton as a summing up. Xandar 23:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The advice part was there because the ASC says Edward carried this action out on their advice. I suppose it isn't necessary, so I removed it. I followed your second suggestion too. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Well I think that concludes my concerns with this article. It is certainly improved enough for me to withdraw my objection and support. Xandar 23:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for improving the article! Let me know if you can think of more ways to improve the article.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks.Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.Eubulides (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta be honest, never previously heard of that. But I've had a go at adding alt text. Deacon's sockpuppet (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the 1st cut. Still needs work, I'm afraid. Alt text should describe only appearance, and should not say anything that's not immediately verifiable by a non-expert sighted reader who's looking only at the image. For the first image File:Death of Earl Siward (cropped).jpg for example, the current alt text says "Face of Earl Siward from Smetham's 1861 painting" (my italics), but almost none of this alt text describes the appearance of the image. Only the italicized word talks about visual appearance. This italicized word should be kept and the rest of the alt text replaced with text that talks only about visual appearance. For more, please see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples (especially the 3rd example). Eubulides (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's much better, but it still needs work. File:Death of Earl Siward (cropped).jpg has alt text "A bearded man wearing a helmet", which is OK but a bit terse for the lead image. How about "Head and shoulders of bearded man in the gloom, wearing a medieval helmet"? The alt text for the 2nd image, Image:EmpireNorth.JPG focuses on unimportant visual details "red color" while omitting the most important gist of the image: namely, where were Cnut's dominions? The alt text for the 3rd image doesn't say that it's a copper coin, which is the first thing you see. The alt text for Image:Death of Earl Siward (Smetham).jpg contains details like "Smetham's 1861" which are not visually apparent, and words like "painting" which aren't needed. Could you please have another go? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, leaning toward supporting. It's looking good on a surface reading. A couple things:
"The region however was more fragmented than this might indicate." Quite an ambiguous "this"; I'm not sure what you're referring to. You have a bit of a penchant for "this", but the others are mostly clear.
Should the long quotation in the "Career under Cnut, Harold and Harthacnut" section begin with "[A]fter"?
Yes, I think the logic of the point Bolton was making (namely, that the picture often given of two ealdorman controlling the whole region is wrong) was being followed more closely than the article text. I've adjusted here.
Is this something that is done? I gotta be honest, never noticed that. Good device! Yes, as you can probably guess, "a" is in lower case because I started quoting the text midway through a sentence.
I'll watch out for "this" in future. Writing takes longer than reading, so the writer and reader operate in a different time-zones. I thought I sorted most of such repetitions when I warped into the reader time-zone, but I didn't catch a proliferation of thises. Is this particularly noticeable? ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, it is looking good. Thanks for all your hard work! --Andy Walsh(talk) 22:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support—'Tis good. Tony(talk) 09:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
_ribbon.png){kind=link}
![[24]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/New_River_Gorge_Bridge.jpg){kind=link}
_volcano_(south_park)_comparison.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[27]](http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/C1705165967/E20080627173700/Media/Stanford%20Memorial%20Church.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}