I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it is well researched. I am interested in anything that helps me improve the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (1a):CommentI am sorry to say that article's prose is a long way short of Featured Article standard. It looks as though a great deal of excellent research has taken place, and there is no reason why this article should not develop to the required standard. It is not there yet, however. I wonder whether, before nominating this, the nominator checked the FA criteria to see whether the article conformed to these? The following is a sample of points taken from the lead alone:-
The explanation of the term "flying ace" is inappropriate, given that the term is explained in the immediately previous link.
Third sentence needs reconstruction, and splitting. I suggest: "Initially rejected by the Luftwaffe because of air-sickness, he became the leading German flying ace of the Spanish Civil War with 14 confirmed aerial victories. He later became the first pilot in aviation history to claim 100 aerial victories."
It is a little confusing to read that two different organisations honoured him in a number of different ways, and that "the decision" was revoked in 2005. What exactly does "the decision" refer to?
There are various problems in the second paragraph.
Non sequitur: "As a successor to Adolf Galland and squadron leader of the 3. Staffel (fighter squadron) of Jagdgruppe 88 (fighter group), he flew the Messerschmitt Bf 109."
Tortuous sentence: "During World War II he became the first pilot to claim 20 aerial victories earning him the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross (Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes), the first fighter pilot to earn the award, only to be shot down and taken prisoner of war one week later."
Third paragraph
Odd phraseology. e.g. "shortly later"
Wrong grammar: "Flying as a passenger in a Heinkel He 111 the return flight to Berlin got into a heavy thunderstorm and one of the engines of the aircraft failed."
These are examples. Someone needs to go through the whole article to refine and polish the prose. I am frankly a little surprised that the article has apparently gone through GA, peer review and a MilHist A-class review, and yet these problems are still evident. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Later:I see that the lead section has been more or less completely rewritten, so my earlier points are superseded. However, I found quite a few prose problems with the revised lead:-
I suggest that the first two sentences are combined, and the language tweaked, to give: "Werner Mölders (18 March 1913 – 22 November 1941) was a GermanLuftwaffe pilot who became the leading German fighter ace of the Spanish Civil War, and the first pilot in aviation history to claim 100 aerial victories."
Second paragraph reads as though the Battle of Britain was part of the Spanish Civil War. Needs to say something like: "After the outbreak of the Second World War, Mölders fought in the Battle of Britain and was the first pilot to claim 40 victories." The jump in the next paragraph to 68 victories in the next sentence is confusing, so perhaps you should say he was the first pilot to claim "in excess of 40 victories."
"Mölders and the JG 51..." You need to explain what the JG 51 was, thus: "Mölders and his unit, the JG 51,..." done
My understanding is that Operation Barbarossa began on 22nd June, so "By 22 June 1941, he had 72 aerial victories" is a bit confusing. Does this mean; "By the end of the first day of this operation he had increased his aerial victories total to 72;"? fixed
Is "banned" the right word to use here? It carries the connotation of punishment. Perhaps "prevented"? Also, the "although" at the beginning of the sentence is redundant and should be removed. fixed
Suggest you say "...from flying further combat missions...", and delete "as" before Inspector General.fixed
"He was only 28", especially as a discrete short sentence, carries a strong POV. If you want to mention his age, omit the "only", and weave it in to the previous sentence: "Prevented from flying further combat missions for propaganda reasons, at the age of 28 he was promoted to Oberst, and appointed Inspector General of Fighters." fixed, good suggestion!
Bring the 22 November date forward, and avoid over-short sentence, thus: "On 22 November 1941, on the flight to Berlin, the Heinkel He 111 in which he was travelling as a passenger encountered a heavy thunderstorm, during which of the aircraft's engines failed. While attempting to land, the Henkel crashed at Breslau, killing Mölders and two others." fixed
Suggest "each honoured him" fixed
Not a prose point, but I see you have not used no-break spaces, as recommended by MOS. See WP:NBSPthanks....in progress....
I don't think I will have the time to go through the rest of the prose with the attention I have given to the lead. What a pity the article didn't come to Peer Review. However I'll do my best to check it out and suggest further improvements. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have fixed most of my new list of lead points. I still think the phrasing at the beginning could be improved, and it still not clear that the Battles of Britain and France were Second World War affairs. I have now read through the "Early life and education" section, and was quite disappointed to find many problems, in a section which I undertand has been subject to "stringent copy editing". Below is a list of these points. I don't like sounding negative, but I can't agree that the prose is yet up to FA standard. I believe it needs a full copyedit from an uninvolved, competent editor who can devote considerable time to getting the prose right. I'd do it myself, but I simply don't have the time.
Early life and education section
The section title is inappropriate, since most of the text is concerned with his early military career. I suggest you retitle it "Childhood, education and early career". doneJN46601:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous untranslated German terms, some linked, others not. This makes reading tedious. In the latter part of the section you start adding English translations, which is helpful. However, I think that some of the German formulations are unnecessary and should be dropped. For example, "Mölders joined the II./Infanterie-Regiment 2..." could become "Molders joined the Second Infantry Regiment..." There are many instances in the section where this could be done; this is, after all, English Wikipedia. Otherwise I sugest you show English translations/equivalents. being doneJN46601:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same sentence: the formation is clumsy, with the semicolon. The sentence should begin "After his father", and the semcolon replaced with a comma. doneJN46601:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"From 1919 to 1931, Mölders attended the Grundschule (Elementary school) and "Saldria-Gymnasium" in Brandenburg an der Havel." This reads as though he was attending two schools at the same time. Why are there quotes around "Saldria-Gymnasium"? I also think the repetition of Brandenburg an der Havel is unnecessary. doneJN46601:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Date range (6 February 1934–31 December 1934) at end of sentence, should be incorporated into the text. It should be made clear what these dates refer to. doneJN46601:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...he suffered continuously from nausea and vomiting" "Continuously" means without interruption or interval. I think you probably mean "continually" ( repeated at regular intervals) done, well spottedJN46601:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overlong, tortuous sentence: "After completing the next phase of his military pilot's training, from 1 January 1935 to 30 June 1935 at the Kampffliegerschule (combat flying school) in Tutow and at the Jagdfliegerschule (fighter pilot school) at Schleißheim near Munich, he received the newly created Pilot's Badge of the Luftwaffe on 21 May 1935." Suggest this is reorganised, and split into two shorter sentences. doneJN46601:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Remilitarisation" does not require capitalising. The sentence would read better with the date at the start, thus: "On 7 March 1936, during the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, Mölders...." doneJN46601:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Mölders met Luise Baldauf, whom he eventually married..." In this case, it is "who", not "whom" you are mistaken: it would be "who married him", but "whom he married"; "he" is the subject, "whom" is the objectJN46601:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have struck the oppose, in view of the good work in response to my comments, above, and as I probably won't be able to get round to a detailed study of the rest. The article will make it eventually, I'm sure. Brianboulton (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The timeline in the third paragraph of the Early Life section needs attention. We have him beginning training at two different schools on 6 February 1934. Could you have a look? JN46612:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the content of this article is superb, and well documented. I agree that the English is "sluggish" but it is easily fixed. When JN is done with a copy edit, I'll do a second one, this weekend probably, and that should take care of most of the language issues. I hope we could encourage people whose native language is not English to offer their knowledge to the english encyclopedia. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update I've completed one round of copyedits, and worked on a few minor content queries with MisterBee1966. The language should be adequate now; Auntieruth is doing further work on it to polish it further. JN46622:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alt text is done; thanks. Alt text is present, but has some problems:
Several images lack alt text; see the "alt text" button at the upper right of this review page. I expect that the two instances of Image:Balkenkreuz.svg should be marked with "|link=|" as per WP:ALT #When to specify.
Several phrases in the alt text cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and need to be reworded or moved to the caption or whatever, as per WP:ALT #What not to specify. These include "Schwarm formation and cross-over turn", "Major Dr. Wenzel (Mölders' aide), Adolf Galland, Werner Mölders and Theo Osterkamp", "Arthur Laumann", "Knight's Cross to the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves", the "victory" in "victory marks", and "Werner Mölders wearing his Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves".
Some phrases duplicate the caption and should be removed, as per WP:ALT #What not to specify. These include "Werner Mölders Messerschmitt Bf 109 F-2, Stab/JG 51, in June 1941" and some of the phrases noted in the previous bullet.
Wow, that was a very good job. I particularly liked the clear expression of the aerial maneuver. I consider the job done, but if you'd like to improve it further you might consider making some of the descriptions shorter, removing phrases that provide relatively little useful info about the topic of the article; phrases such as "Black-and-white photograph of", or the detailed description of the birthday party table. You can move the full-length detailed description to the image page itself. Eubulides (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I noted that WP:ALT says not to put "drawing of", "photograph of" and so on. In this case I thought it might be helpful to convey the feeling that these are contemporary photographs taken 70 or 75 years ago, but I'm still in two minds about it. I'll shorten the descriptions a little further and see if the longer versions can come in useful on the image description page. Thanks for the feedback and ideas. --JN46622:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with the caveat that I've now been up and down the article multiple times and have made well over a hundred edits to it: I am no longer an uninvolved party. (I wasn't involved or aware of this article before it came to FAC though.) From Friday, I'll be without regular Internet access for a week. I'll check back in tomorrow and will check in at the end of next week to see if the nomination is still open and anything else needs to be done. Good luck with the nomination in the meantime. JN46622:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an informed, and interesting article. Like JN, I make the caveat (for the sake of transparency) that I have been through the article several times, made significant copy edits (primarily focused on fixing "Germanisms") and made 86 edits. The editor of this article is not a native speaker of English, consequently there were initially some issues with the English. As far as I am concerned, these are resolved. There may be other commentators who quibble with minor points here and there; these can be easily dealt with. I encourage the promotion of this article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Made a few tweaks to prose but overall I think this reads extremely well, is detailed and objective, well-sourced and -illustrated, and deserves the bronze star - well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just had a first sweep, will have another detailed one later today. This stood out at me: In 1998, the German Parliament, made on the occasion of the 61st Anniversary of the bombing of the Spanish town of Guernica, during the Spanish Civil War. It doesn't make sense. What did they made? In general, the article looks good. Woody (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A self-nom, a short article about a London eccentric that people who visited Oxford Street in London a lot during the last 20-30 years are likely to have seen at some point. The article exhausts the reliable sources, so far as I know. SlimVirgintalk|contribs02:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Green became one of London's much-loved eccentrics, though his campaign to suppress desire, as one commentator put it, was not invariably popular, leading as it did to two arrests for obstruction and the need to wear green overalls to protect himself from spit." Is that the passive voice, or something? Seems odd. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs)
I'm thinking there are too many commas. The "He walked up and down Oxford Street six days a week, reduced to four days from 1985 onwards, campaigning until 6:30 pm among the shoppers, usually around Oxford Circus, then spent Saturday evenings with the cinema crowds in Leicester Square." paragraph, for instance. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Young women in particular attracted his advice, including that they would find it impossible to deceive their grooms that they were virgins on their wedding night." is awkward. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I wouldn't necessarily change the "Green became one of London's much-loved eccentrics..." sentence, I'd recommend looking again at any sentence that has 2+ commas, and see if just putting in a period would improve it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the virgin sentence again. It now reads: "His advice that young women should eat a low-protein diet—because "You cannot deceive your groom that you are a virgin on your wedding night!"—was not always appreciated, and led to his being arrested twice for public obstruction, in 1980 and again in 1985." SlimVirgintalk|contribs05:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cquotes? I've always thought they were gaudy; I like my articles to look like articles. Are you calling these quotes pull quotes? Ling.Nut (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"described by Susan Pearce of the University of Leicester as worthy of the cartoonist Heath Robinson". Actually, I think this description should be attributed to W. Januszczak... unless I'm mistaken, it seems that a Januszczak article was reprinted in its entirety in Pearce & Martin (2003)...
I call them pull quotes whether they cite something in the article or an external text; perhaps blockquote is the better term. If you really dislike them, feel free to remove them. I like to keep them in longer texts to break up the narrative, but in a short article they matter a lot less. Though I do like the quotes. The first is both funny and sad: "it might be very hard to be well behaved with a sexual friend, and to be headstrong in one's lonely bed: HARD to follow a responsible moral-code, in the unmarried years," and the second is heartbreaking, given his situation (given any situation): "Protein wisdom changes your whole life, makes it easier. Passion can be a great torment." SlimVirgintalk|contribs10:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of the alt images need to be improved. For example the alt text for Image:Protein.jpg says :
Green near the corner of Dean Street, Soho, circa 1983.
It should rather describe the image and say something like
Green walking through a crowd on Oxford Street holding his sign
I added alt text. It took me six minutes, including the time it took to remove duplication between a caption and the text in its image. (Plus another three minutes to make this comment. :-) Eubulides (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I view the article the line under the "Posthumous recognition" heading cuts through the quote to the left of it, is there anyway to avoid this? Guest9999 (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked out the line I meant in this image, I don't think it's really a big deal but a lot of FAC seems to be about little details so thought it might be worth bringing up. Guest9999 (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. It was the pull quote that was the problem, and given that another reviewer has already said she doesn't like them, I've just removed it. It's too short an article for them, what with the images too. Let me know if it still looks odd, though, please. SlimVirgintalk|contribs22:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed your first and second points. [7] The reason I added "accessed" to the ONDB ref was that I was sent a temporary link by the publisher that I could use to access it, but not one that would work for everyone, or for anyone beyond a certain date. I've removed it.
Bookworks is the publisher of the book I cite, and a registered charity, [8] plus it's not really a contentious point, just an opinion of what Green was, in effect, doing. I just need a citation for that quote. SlimVirgintalk|contribs00:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave that out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean reliable for the information (I was mainly looking to see why the person commenting was important enough to note their opinion...) Ealdgyth - Talk01:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions and nitpicks:
In "Early life":
Should Wood Green school be Wood Green School?
Is there any particular reason why year of birth and death categories are not used? (Seriously, have these been deprecated or something? I haven't been in the loop lately.)
[...] and from 1961 as a self-employed gardener. From 1961 to his death?
"In writing":
Perhaps you could provide a bit more context here. [...] described by Waldemar Januszczak could be described by art critic Waldemar Januszczak; readers will from outside the UK will almost invariably not know why Heath Robinson is famous (and, consequently, why Green's press would be worthy of a Heath Robinson drawing), and you really shouldn't presume they'll follow the link.
I've changed font, size, and weight to typeface, size, and weight, as a font is properly the combination of typeface, point size, and weight.
You'd do well to move File:Protein.jpg (WP:ACCESS again), especially since having the image "look" out of the text is not an issue here.
In "Posthumous recognition":
Over a decade later, he is still remembered by writers and bloggers, fondly for the most part, though not invariably; shouldn't this be [...] not invariably so?
The punctuation-free footnotes are a bit jarring. Is this an established style I'm embarrassingly unfamiliar with?
London, The Biography could use an ISBN.
Let me just say this is a lovely article. I liked the rather atypical writing style, the fascinating subject, and the fact this man was notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article—and enough high-quality sources to avoid its veering into original research. Awesome work. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, much appreciated, and thanks for reviewing it. :) Your comments were very helpful, and I think I've fixed the issues, [9] except for the ISBN, which I forgot, but I'll do it now. SlimVirgintalk|contribs23:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you. Why is there no further mention of (or reference for) his appearances in fiction in the "Posthumous recognition" section? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to simply repeat it, but I can't expand on it, because no source does. And I don't have a copy of Ben Elton's novel, so I don't know how he appears in it. I could take another look around, but I'm not overly keen on buying it to track down that one sentence. :) SlimVirgintalk|contribs23:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, although I seem to have missed the reference? Apparently the book is out of print as well, so that would be way too much bother :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made it invisible for now, as the reference was a website that probably doesn't count as an RS, and it didn't say what the novel said about Green. I'll wait until I have a better source that elaborates, or until I've seen it for myself. SlimVirgintalk|contribs01:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - the lead is four paragraphs for a 13k article. I would suggest merging the top two and merging the bottom two and perhaps condensing a little (but not necessary). The language is compelling. You might want to say in the article where the quote "I was astonished when..." comes from (the pamphlet, I assume). "and while there, in March 1946," You might want to move that first comma to before "while", as the phrase "while there" operates in the same manner as "in March 1946" and it is better to have one compound phrase like that instead of two possibly conflicting phrases (conflicting for the same position and not for meaning). "and from 1961 until" You'll want to add a comma after "and" in order to make sure that the "and" connects to the second job that is currently disconnected by only one comma preceding it. There is sandwiching of two images in "On the streets", which isn't good. Since the image on the left is similar to the one at the top right, it might be able to go without any major problems. "Saturday evenings he would spend" Could be switched to "He would spend Saturday evenings" to sound more straight forward. "and led to his being arrested twice for public obstruction" - haha, any reason why telling girls they shouldn't be too sexually excited is "public obstruction" or do I not want to know? :) "Rowlands 2007." This doesn't have a page number - is there one? Likewise, you might want to add page numbers after "cited in Carter 2006" for ease. Over all, it is a strong article and I can support once the sandwiching is fixed (it is an MoS violation). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments and suggestions. I've fixed a few things:
"Astonished" quote already has in-text attribution to Sunday Times: "I was astonished when things were said quite openly—what a husband would say to his wife when home on leave", he told The Sunday Times."
Lead is now three paras.
The "while there" comma: if I move it, it changes the meaning from "he failed the exam in March 1946" to "he failed the exam when he worked for Fine Art Society, which was in March 1946.
Oxford Street image removed, so the sandwiching is gone.
"Saturday evening" sentence: I don't want two sentences in a row starting with "He."
Rowland 2007 is a book blurb, and Carter 2006 an article, so no page numbers.
Everything is looking good text wise. I see no textual MoS violations and, as I said before, it is strongly written. I will perform a sourcing check later. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support — I agree with Ottava. Perhaps the 2007 photograph of Oxford Street can go, it adds very little and the text sandwiching is a problem. The article is, on the whole, beautifully written. Graham ColmTalk10:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you want a local copy of File:Stanley Green, Oxford Street, 1977.jpg kept, but I have cleaned it up and moved a copy to Commons. I assume the OTRS ticket it valid for this.
File:Stanley Green by Sean Hickin (1).jpg moved to Commons, deleted locally, verified that it is on Flickr under a CC-BY-2.0 license, and the original file uploaded. Looks good. Some cropping should probably be done to remove the black border.
File:Protein.jpg should probably be moved to a more descriptive name, but is fine.
File:Cover of Eight Passion Proteins.jpg is certainly an interesting file. It needs a date, but the CC-BY-2.0 OR Fair Use holds up, I believe. I'd appreciate a double check by someone else on this one.
Thanks for checking, NW. I tried removing the black border but something odd happened to the image when I reuploaded (it narrowed in an odd way). I now have a borderless one that was sent by the person who took it, so I'll upload that. SlimVirgintalk|contribs13:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting article on an interesting character. I was engaged by his story, and I think the article is just the right length..enough detail to attract my interest, but not an overwhelming amount. Kudos for finding so many references on the guy, I imagine that took some doing.
I have a few comments. Some of these are judgment calls; I believe they would improve the article, but if you see it differently I would defer to your opinion. Others are more significant. I'll check back and see what you think of each:
Is "sandwich man" a common phrase? I'd never heard it…I'll take your word for it if it is :)
Is the fact that his obituary was published worthy of noting in the article text? …in the lead section? Seems just about everyone gets an obit published. It seems to detract from the significance of his placards etc. going to a museum. If there's something significant about the obit, it should be drawn out wherever it's mentioned.
It was published by The Daily Telegraph, a high-quality, conservative, mainstream newspaper, the daily reading of the country's upper classes. That they published it is interesting, and provides a little bathos. I'm not keen on drawing it out for fear of overegging it. SlimVirgintalk|contribs13:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see Peregrine also commented on this. The green overalls thing is odd in a couple ways -- for one thing, it's hard to understand how overalls would protect him from spit found on his hat (?) For another, the way it's phrased (both in the lead and in the body), it sounds as though the color is part of what protected him. It seems there are two separate points here, maybe worthy of separate sentences: one is that he wore the overalls for protection, the other is that the green overalls became a distinctive element of his identity.
The only vehicles allowed onto Oxford Street are buses and tourist coaches, mostly doubledecker. So if someone is spitting on you, it's likely to be from the upper deck, and is therefore likely to land on your head or hat. That's my understanding of that point. The overalls were to make sure it didn't affect him elsewhere. I'll take a look at the green issue. :) SlimVirgintalk|contribs13:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is placardeer a word? I find definitions for placarder, but not for placardeEr. (I rather like the word, but WP isn't the place to be coining new ones ;)
I found this sentence difficult to parse (technically correct, but I stumbled and had to reread a couple times). The trouble's with the last two phrases and the comma: "He later worked for Selfridges, the civil service, as a storeman for Ealing Borough Council, and from 1961 until he became a sandwich man, as a self-employed gardener."
I would suggest removing the borders on the images in the galleries. I don't believe they serve any purpose, and they introduce a bit of graphic inconsistency in the article overall.
Good job on all. Please see my "Telegraph" suggestion above; otherwise, all looking good. I'd be happy to do the borders, if you'd like the assistance. -Pete (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The person who took the images has sent me non-border versions. I've just not had time to re-upload them. I've been having some trouble uploading images, and I don't know why. When I upload the first version, it's fine. But if I need to change something -- a border, or more cropping, whatever -- and I reupload another version, the image ends up squashed. I can't work out why. It doesn't always happen -- only started a few months ago -- but often enough for re-uploading to have become a bit of a nuisance. SlimVirgintalk|contribs16:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the issue I think it is, it's only a very temporary thing that happens on your own computer immediately after upload. I believe purging the page (e.g. by adding the &purge argument in the URL, or using one of the options in user preferences) gets rid of the issue. It's possible you're speaking of something different, but that issue is one I've run into a number of times. -Pete (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. So you mean it looks to me as though the image on WP is squashed, but in fact it's only on my computer that it looks that way? Heh. I've spent ages struggling with it sometimes. :) SlimVirgintalk|contribs16:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think the two issues un-struck above are worth a little more consideration, but by no means should they prevent FA. -Pete (talk) 18:01, 14 September 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 is a thorough, full and well rounded look at MissingNo., a controversial character in Pokémon Red and Blue used as an error handler that many people became quickly acquainted with, and one with a lasting impact. With the i's dotted, a thorough peer review, and an even more thorough copyedit, this should be a pleasure to read for you.Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While certain reviewers might take issue with the length, it passes all FA criteria and appears to fully cover the topic. I heavily copyedited the article prior to its nomination, but as far as I know, that does not void my support. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article is very short. Could you give details of MissingNo.'s abilities? Also, could you extend the background re: capturing, battling pokemon? If I hadn't had friends who played the games, I wouldn't understand the article without fishing through the bluelinks. -- EA SwyerTalkContributions14:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Going more in-depth than it is currently runs risk of violating WP:GAMEGUIDE, per previous editor's comments during the Peer Review and A-class assessment processes. As it stands all applicable information is already in the article despite its length.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's being cited solely for the Hall of Fame corruption information, however that info is actually repeated in another source in the article so replacing it to save hassle.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentImages check out—article has one non-free image, but its use is justified. I'm not sure I'm satisfied, though, with the writing style or depth of coverage in the "Reaction and reception" section (particularly the second paragraph). First of all, the style is a bit clunky; I think it over-attributes the author (saying "the book talks about how," "the author believes", etc.) where it could be more active (for example, instead of saying "the book talks about how players compare notes...", the article could just describe players taking notes, and then have a footnote). This makes the prose feel a bit dry, IMO. Also, things are left unexplained or just glossed over. For example, "The author believed MissingNo.'s popularity to be an unusual case, with unique circumstances"—why does he think this, what does he think is unusual/unique, etc.? This is a very short article, and I think this section needs to be where the bulk of the content is (since the reaction to MissingNo. is what makes it notable), but right now it just doesn't feel complete to me. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs02:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"why does he think this, what does he think is unusual/unique, etc." I'm sorry but the author never actually explained that in the detail you seem to want. He gave three pages worth of discussion to how players reacted to the character and the study of such: the text is a straight up summary, so I don't see how it over-attributes said author. Adding more would require reading into his statements and walking into original research territory.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For now, then, I will have to stay Neutral. This article is certainly a good article and also meets most of the FA criteria, but without more to offer I'm not sure it can be considered to be among Wikipedia's "very best work"—it does an excellent job creating a good article out of what little information is available, but unless more stuff becomes available this might just be too obscure a topic to write an FA about. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs16:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No FA criterion states, "Articles that present a complete summary of a notable topic should be at least 30kb in size", or something like that. Wikipedia's "best work" is that which adheres to all FA criteria, not that which follows unwritten guidelines. If you have a problem with the length, when the subject clearly has enough coverage for a complete and notable summary, then I suggest that you make a push to update the FA criteria on related talk pages. As to the "over-attribution" of that author, I disagree. Ideally, Wikipedia articles should mention the writer in the prose every time they are used as a source. Not doing so necessitates synthesis and other forms of OR, such as "Several reviewers found fault with..." constructions. Properly, it should be "*source* said that several reviewers found fault with...", or simply the presentation of the reviews without a summary. Citing the former construction with those several reviews is synthesis, and therefore OR. Similarly, to state that author's comments without attribution is to give them "undue weight". How do we know that any of his statements are true? They could all be lies or fabrications. But that doesn't matter, because they are verifiable against reliable sources. So why confuse the reader by pretending that Wikipedia tells the truth, when all we're supposed to do is compile statements from reliable - not factual - sources? Better to attribute them and avoid the whole mess.
All of the above policy violations may be accepted practices at FAC (and believe me, they are; I've used them myself), but you can't openly suggest that it should be done this way without a backlash. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the article should be 30k or any other arbitrary length, that's something you completely made up; I said I don't think it gives enough information, and it leaves me with unanswered questions (if you want this put in terms of FA criteria, that's 1b). So stop putting words in my mouth. As for "over-attribution", you seem to be misinterpreting what I'm saying; I wasn't talking about citation issues, I was talking about writing style. Having "he says," "he believes", etc., on every single sentence is clunky (that's your criterion 1a, since you seem to be so hung up on wording things in terms of FA criteria and nothing else).
I looked carefully at the article and, if you haven't noticed, I didn't "oppose"; I'm not sure what I've done to warrant this snarky response from you. For Kung Fu Man's sake especially, I suggest you refrain from leaving any more snarky respones to comments people make here; the behavior of supporters often reflects on the FAC/RFA/AFD/whatever itself, and other people shouldn't have to pay for your silly remarks. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs23:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdent) Rjanag, I was not being snarky. If it came off that way, I apologize. I realize that you did not oppose, but I also know that opposition and support do not necessarily cause the FA director(s) to pass or fail an article. They judge consensus; when you leave a comment that questions the article's completeness—even if it's a neutral comment—they take note. These things are often what cause an article to fail, and so they must be attended to. As for your complaints about the article, you must present something "actionable", as they say. As in, it has to be something that can be fixed. If the article leaves you with questions, then what questions are they? Thus far, you have complained that the Reaction section is too brief. But if there is no other information to include, that isn't an actionable complaint. It also does not fall under 1b, as no "major facts or details" are neglected. What other major facts or details about MissingNo. exist? If you state these, or if you know of "relevant literature on the topic" not covered in the article, then complaints about completeness are justified. Your other complaint, regarding the attribution of the book source, was what I was arguing against; I was not talking about citations. Analyses should be attributed to their source in the prose—not just with a footnote. My previous comment digressed to explain that this is how policy would have it for all sourced material, despite its lack of enforcement at FAC. This does not fall under 1a, but rather 1d. An article that cites someone's analysis as fact is not neutral. "The book states that, in their attempts to canonize MissingNo. through fan art and fiction, Pokémon communities celebrated the game's imperfections and tried to imprint themselves on series' canon." - this becomes, "In their attempts to canonize MissingNo. through fan art and fiction, Pokémon communities celebrated the game's imperfections and tried to imprint themselves on series' canon." I can think of no way to reword this and keep the original meaning. The same goes for all the other prose-attributed statements. "MissingNo.'s popularity was an unusual case, with unique circumstances"? It just doesn't work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no further comment about the "1b" thing because I've already said my piece and don't want to hijack this FAC by going around in circles. As for the "1a" bit... if you think every sentence in an article should say "___ says" or "according to ___", that's all well and good, but you can spend weeks searching around and you will not find an FA, or any other article, that does that. Such a writing style would be impossible to sit down and read. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs00:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing to oppose because of the last sentence of the article, "The author believed MissingNo.'s popularity to be an unusual case, with unique circumstances.[9]" This sentence seems uninformative and a bit inane (just saying it's "unique" without saying why is bordering on peacock); if the author really didn't give any further information than that and we can't give any more clarification, I think the sentence is better off just being removed. If that sentence is removed I'll be back to neutral. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs00:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
copying Kung Fu Man's message from [14]—sorry, but I prefer to keep the discussion in one place:
But the exact line being paraphrase is:
"However, this is an unusal case and, for the most part, there is no equivalent attempt to ameliorate the situation through explanatory or compensatory textual production."
That sums up what the text is given without trying to embelish: he stated it as an unusal case and the circumstances were unique. I don't understand why you feel the need to come across as antagonistic over it, but no use of peacock words or other hubbub is being done here. Saying "remove something or I'll keep opposing" is a bit offkilter for a FAC of all things don't you think?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My above message wasn't meant as a threat, which is how you seem to be interpreting it; it was the same as any substantive comments people make at FAC: "here is a problem with the article; I can't support an article that I think has a big problem; if you fix the problem, then it'll be better". You can choose to interpret my comments as "antagonistic" threats, but that's not my fault. As for the sentence itself: it's simply not informative. It's not your fault, it's the author's fault—although, for what it's worth, he seems to be saying a little more than your summary says (he's saying that what makes it "unique" is that no textual error message is given along with Missingno.).
Judging by this message you got from Jimmyblackwing, it seems that he and perhaps you think that there were "no actionable comments" in my message above. I don't know what you guys are missing; I specifically said that I think the article doesn't have enough information (1b) and has problems with writing style (1a). That's plenty constructive; you haven't taken any action on those comments in 5 days. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs00:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you felt ignored in any way, but I seriously felt the matter with your statements was done: I felt fine with how you felt, knew there was little I could do about it without feeling the article would be compromised and left it at neutral. In actuality what the text is referring to is the earlier bit of people attempting to rationalize MissingNo. amongst each other through text or other forms (that precedes that line if you notice from the page numbers in the references) and any other approach to the line would come across as wordy. He stated it was an unusual case, and that those circumstances were unique to it. If you can think of a better way to spell that out then we can come to an agreement, but I can't squeeze more content into the article where there is none to squeeze.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above, if there is "nothing more to squeeze" out of that sentence then it should be removed. If he said nothing more than that, it's simply not an informative or useless sentence, and Wikipedia doesn't need to parrot everything written by this guy. The fact of the matter is, as a reader, I got to that sentence and it didn't do anything for me; as an editor, I wanted to (and would have, if this weren't in the middle of a FAC) just taken it out, because in any context it's just bad writing. Regardless of content, I can't consider this "among Wikipedia's best work" if it ends on a silly sentence that sounds like it came out of a high school book report. Again, I'm not saying this is your fault—I'm simply saying that if there is no information in the source itself, it doesn't need to be repeated here. You are free to disagree and not remove the sentence, but I'm afraid my opposition will also have to stand, because (like I said above) I can't consider this some of Wikipedia's best work if it has that kind of fluff in it. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs00:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gah, so many walls of text. Compromise works nicely too no? "The author described these circumstances as unique to MissingNo., and called its popularity an unusual case." <- Is this better? It's rewritten to flow in mind with the previous statement and tie into them, thus better informing the reader while retaining the same information.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this sentence is right after the bit about fans' attempts to "imprint themselves on the game's canon", so why not a rewording to "this treatment makes MissingNo. unique among video game glitches" or something like that? That's more expressive than the current wording—the key is being specific about what "circumstances" he sees as unique. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs
But the text isn't saying "it's an unusual case amongst glitches", it's saying "it's an unusual case" as in "case to study". Going with the form you suggested isn't supported by the text, Rjanag. I'm going to go ahead with what I have: if you wish to continue to oppose from there there isn't anything I can do for the matter but feel your suggestions and policy don't agree on this matter.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the article is as comprehensive as it can be, and the prose is very good. I did a small copyedit, but I still do have one concern. Throughout the article, Pokémon Red and Blue are always referred to as singular: (e.g. "the player uses a Pokémon with the Fly ability to reach the game's Cinnabar Island location") In the same vein as the Pokémon Red and Blue article, shouldn't it be plural (games')? Artichoker[talk]22:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support-I performed a slight copyedit. Most of the changes are trivial in nature, but I did take a stab at rewording the description of how the event is triggered—it was confusing before and hopefully it's clearer now, but you should check and make sure it's still correct and I haven't mishandled the source. As comprehensive as it's going to get, image is well justified, sources check out and I think the prose reaches the necessary quality. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)02:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant support. I almost think the fact that this article meets the FA criteria is a sign they need to be improved somehow. I'm not talking about length or importance, but... quality of external coverage? This article just feels weak. But it does meet the FA criteria. Noisalt (talk) 02:42, 14 September 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've nominated this one before but at the time, the consensus appeared to be the information and sources were fine, but there were some grammatical issues. Through a peer review and some copy edits from myself and other editors, I think those problems have now been addressed, so I'm nominating it again. Thanks! — HunterKahn(c)20:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Why is Sally Struthers discussed in 3 different sections of the article? (apart from the plot and the lead) I think some restructuring may be needed in order to cut down on the repetition. For starters, I think the stuff from Reception should be removed wholesale from there, and merged into another section.
I've removed the bit about Struthers in the Cultural references section since you are right, most of that information is repeated from Production and it is a bit repetitive. However, I think the rest of the structuring is appropriate. The part in "Production" deals with their writing and implementation of the parody into the episode. "Themes" only mentions her briefly with regard to the episode's theme of gluttony. And the part in "Reception" deals with Struthers' reaction to the episode upon its release, which strikes me as a natural for that section. That being said, do you have any more specific suggestions for further restructuring? — HunterKahn(c)02:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, assuming this is the commentary you are referencing, I feel you are skirting the boundaries of original research in interpreting the creators' comments. For example, I'm not sure you can interpret Parker and Stone as "remorseful" unless secondary sources say so.
You may be aware of this already, but that YouTube link is in fact only a three minute sample of a 22 minute commentary track (the entirety of which can be downloaded here). Right around 12:45 is the bit where they do in fact say they were remorseful. The exact quote: "We did feel bad for how we treated Sally Struthers here, and we felt bad when she found out that she cried and everything." — HunterKahn(c)02:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Struthers was particularly upset with the fact that her character steals food from the same starving children she had been working to help"—not mentioned in the commentary.
Right around the 18 minute mark, they address this. At this point they are discussing the specific part in the movie where she is eating their food. Parker says, "This is what she got really upset about. She was basically saying, the fact that we were saying she was collecting all this money just so she could have food." A little afterward, Stone addresses it a bit further. — HunterKahn(c)02:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"although in typical South Park fashion they have not apologized"—there is nothing about what constitutes "typical South Park fashion" in the commentary.
"Struthers was portrayed in an even less flattering way in the third season episode "Starvin' Marvin in Space" as a Jabba the Hutt-like creature"—and neither is this. indopug (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Right after the above 12:45 quote (about them being remorseful), they say "We had her in another episode a couple years later where we made her even fatter and she became Jabba the Hutt. She was so fat that she just was Jabba the Hutt. It was so sweet." They also identify the episode by title ("Starvin' Marvin in Space") right around 13:25. — HunterKahn(c)02:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - On the prose, which looks solid.
Mephisto is ignored and ridiculed by McDaniels. - is instead
"Ethiopian child whom they dub Starvin' Marvin. Cartman is accidentally sent to Ethiopia" can you add a "later" or a "then" or something to start the second sentence?
"The episode received generally positive reviews and is considered a classic South Park episode. " switch order? Not sure.
I'd rather not, if only because other episode articles use this kind of wording and I'd rather maintain consistency. But again, if it's a big deal, let me know or feel free to change it yourself. — HunterKahn(c)03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"viewed by about" maybe "roughly" instead of "about", since "about" is used twice in the sentence.
"Chef dons war paint like William Wallace in the film Braveheart" can you add a secondary source for this?
Is this really necessary? If so, I'll add it, but my understanding is inline citations are to be avoided in the plot summary section, and this information is cited elsewhere in the article... — HunterKahn(c)03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There were several less than adequite sections in this article. Notably the Seinfeld section fits terribly in its current position, and several sentances seem to drone on and on. Try commas. They help, really, it's true. Also, I despise South Park, which makes it easy for me to oppose this. I personally think South Park has zero EV. Nezzadar (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I doubt this objection will be even be seriously considered in the end, since you are blatantly and overtly violating WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That being said, I've reworked some sentences, and would certainly be open to any other specific suggestions you might have. As for the Seinfeld thing, I've reworded it a bit, but since the information has to do with casting, it seems to me the production section is exactly where it belongs... — HunterKahn(c)03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply—I had no idea the YouTube clip was just a preview. I had listened to a number of the later season commentaries and those are all only 2-3 minutes long (correct me if I'm wrong). So I assumed that the commentary for this episode was only that long too. Further comments—
Not a problem at all. In fact, you are correct; in later seasons, Parker and Stone limited their commentaries to only two or three minutes long, but in the first season (and possibly a bit in the second, I'm not sure) they did full length episode commentaries, so I can certainly see where you would draw that conclusion... — HunterKahn(c)22:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to its own article, the use of Third World to describe the poorer nations of the world "is widely disparaged since the term no longer holds any verifiable meaning after the fall of the Soviet Union deprecated the terms First World and Second World." So we should replace the term.
How about "impoverished countries"? Or is that too strong a term, and correspondingly in need of a stronger reference? Poorer countries seems a little ambiguous to me here as every country of the world is "poorer" than the United States :). indopug (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the African nation Ethiopia, which is famous for its two famines from the mid-1980s."—it seems very dismissive and rather offensive to suggest that an entire country is only famous for its famines. The source you need to cite for such a claim would be a scholarly Ethiopian history/politics book, rather than just a news report.
I absolutely did not mean to be dismissing or offensive, and apologize if I did. I changed the wording to "experienced two famines", rather than to say it is famous for them. I would think this wording is less problematic and should be sufficient with the current source. Is this better? — HunterKahn(c)03:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Parker and Stone said the character is not named after the Starvin' Marvin's brand of American gas stations, and that the similarity between the two names is just a coincidence." The source you cite just says "I live in Pensacola, FL. We have a Starvin' Marvin's gas station here. Did Trey and Matt know this and name Marvin after that or is it just a cow-inky-dink? That's one hell of a cowinkydink!" There's no indication that this was said by Parker and Stone. Also, considering that you are citing an often tongue-in-cheek primary source (and I have no idea what's a cow-inky-dink), it might be best to leave out this tidbit of information.
I can (and did) change it to reflect that this did not come from Parker and Stone necessarily, although I think they do screen those answers, if not write them. I suppose I could remove it if you think it doesn't belong though. Take a look at the new wording, and if you still think it should go, I'll cut it. — HunterKahn(c)03:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is the DVD release info related to the production of the episode? I suggest renaming Reception to Release and reception, and moving the DVD paragraph there.
"is considered a classic South Park episode" not sure this is exactly established in the rest of the article. Further, considering that it is presently agreed—even by the creators—that South Park's earliest episodes aren't anywhere as good as the later ones, I doubt this statement has much merit. It sure as hell ain't "Scott Tenorman Must Die". indopug (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can be addressed by changing the wording in the lead from "is considered a classic episode" to "several reviewers have described it as a classic episode", which is what the wording is in the body of the article anyway. As far as what you are saying about the classification, I understand your logic and I don't necessarily think it's one of the best episodes either. But we do have multiple sources here characterizing it as a classic episode, so I think it warrants inclusion even if you and I don't necessarily agree... — HunterKahn(c)03:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure the changed wording is an improvement, to be honest. (For one, the words 'review' and 'reviewers' in the same sentence makes for bad reading.) And that doesn't really solve the problem I had in the first place. By calling it a classic in the lead, we imply that it is commonly considered a masterpiece episode, which is not true as many series overviews of South Park (i.e. lists like "Best Episodes/Moments Ever") don't really mention this episode at all. The two references you use to cite this (#17 and #18) are both from 1999. To validate it as a classic you would need a consensus of sources from much later, when it can be compared to more of the show's canon. I suggest just describing it as a highlight of the first season in the lead; if you disagree, you can revert to the previous version of the sentence. indopug (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "commentators" to be less redundant. As far as the classic versus non-classic issue, I still feel like it should be in the story, or at the very least in the reception section even if not the lead. First of all, I think there is a difference between a "classic" and the best episodes; I would never argue this episode is better than "Scott Tenorman Must Die", but you could argue it's more widely known (especially among non SP-fans) and had an important early impact on the show. But putting that aside, more importantly, I think we're getting into our own opinions here. Whether you or I think of it as a classic, the fact is there are legitimate sources that describe it this way; and I have at least two other sources from more recent (2004 and 2008) that also describe it this way, which I've now added to the article. I'd rather it stay, but all that being said, is this an issue that would prevent you from supporting the article if it did? — HunterKahn(c)20:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further— I believe this is getting close, so allow me to be pedantic and nitpicky.
(I think you missed my comment above in between Peregrine Fisher's) Is the mention of Braveheart in the plot section necessary? It doesn't improve the reader's understanding of the plot, especially if they haven't seen the film.
I suppose you are right. I had added it because it was such a big part of the episode, but since it's thoroughly covered in the Cultural references section and mentioned in the lead, I suppose I can drop it from the Plot summary. Done. — HunterKahn(c)20:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
South Park Studios (official site) shouldn't be italicised or linked. (Since the South Park article to which it redirects carries no information about it.) If you are citing any other websites, they shouldn't be italicised either.
"although they have not apologized"—how do you know they haven't apologized? If its just by the fact that they didn't "we are really sorry for what we did" in the 22-minute commentary, you are inferring things. Also, although they probably didn't, how do you know they haven't apologised to her elsewhere? If you can't find a secondary source to back this up, I suggest rewording to: "did not have anything against Struthers personally. However, they portrayed Struthers in an even less-flattering fashion in the third season episode "Starvin' Marvin in Space" as a Jabba the Hutt-like creature."
Well, they said in the commentary that they didn't apologize. They also made a joke to the effect that her portrayal in "Starvin' Marvin in Space" was the closest they've come to an apology. But I suppose they could have apologized and just not said it, or maybe they've apologized since it was recorded, so I dropped it as per your suggestion. (I used "Nevertheless" instead of "However". If you don't like it, feel free to change it.) — HunterKahn(c)20:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you use quotes within quoted material, it should be in 'single quotes'. For eg: "4-disc "Rings" could take up a whole weekend" → "4-disc 'Rings' could take up a whole weekend".
References are inconsistently formatted. Ref 5 has date at the end, while the others have it in brackets next to the author. Also, while I don't think it absolutely necessary that newspaper refs contain refs page numbers, when you cite books it's kinda mandatory (refs 4 and 15). Refs 10 and 18 are duplicates. indopug (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the duplicating ref. Regarding the books, I assume you are talking about page numbers? I'll get those, hopefully tonight or tomorrow. As far as the inconsistent formatting, I'm using Template:Cite news and other appropriate templates, so I think they are as consistent as possible. I think the reason Ref 5 has the date different than the others is because the others have author names, but this one does not... — HunterKahn(c)20:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Citation templates piss me off. Anyway, I fixed the SouthParkStudios italics thing by changing 'work' to 'publisher'. No idea about the date thing without the author. indopug (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support—This article was very good when it got here, and I think it became FA-worthy once it was slightly restructured to remove redundancies. I still have one concern though—the use of the term "poorer countries", which I have expressed in a reply above. I am sure you will be able to come up with something regarding this too. Good luck for the FAC! indopug (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience in working through the article with me! Also, I've made the change regarding poorer countries. Thanks again! — HunterKahn(c)14:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to all: I will be away until Sunday at my sister-in-law's wedding. I'll promptly respond to any new inquiries as soon as I get back. Thanks! — HunterKahn(c)00:52, 11 September 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.
Well, this is this article's third nomination. After the most recent unsuccesful nomination I went on a long break from Wikipedia, well now I'm back and ready to try again. This has been my project" since the first of March, so I've officially been "working on it" for 6, going into 7, months. ResMar14:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text???? Well that's new. How old is this guidline, a couple of weeks??? Never seen it before...are al images now required to have an alt text? ResMar18:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back to Wikipedia. Support for alt text was added to the MediaWiki software last October, the WP:ALT guideline was updated a couple of months later, and it has been required for FAs since July 1. If you'd like help or suggestions please drop a line at WT:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe not a thousand times, but at least once. Thanks for adding the alt text, but it has a couple of problems:
SomeMuch of the alt text duplicates the caption. For example, the alt text "Bathymetric mapping of Lōʻihi, with an arrow pointing to Pele's Pit in the center." nearly duplicates the caption "Bathymetric mapping of Lōʻihi; the arrow points to Pele's Pit." Alt text should not repeat the caption; see WP:ALT#Repetition. This is because the alt text and the caption are both read aloud to visually impaired readers who use a screen reader.
Thanks, that edit added alt text for the image that lacked it, so I struck that comment. However, its changes to the other alt text entries did not address the repetition problem. For example, for Image:LoihiBathemetric.jpg a screen reader will read the alt text and caption aloud, resulting in unwanted repetitionsomething like "Link Bathymetric mapping of Lōʻihi, with an arrow pointing to Pele's Pit in the center. Link Bathymetric mapping of Lōʻihi; the arrow points to Pele's Pit." (alt text italicized); the repetition obviously is not helping the visually impaired. (Please see WP:ALT#Repetition for more details about this.) To fix this, please edit the alt text for that image to something that gives useful info about visual appearance but does not repeat the caption, e.g., "A north-south ridge, trending slightly east of south. Pele's Pit, at its peak, is about 1000 meters below sea level; further south the ridge gradually descends about 3500 meters to the sea floor." Similarly for the other images. Eubulides (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's much better. It's pretty close to being done. There are a few remaining points.
The alt text "See caption." for File:LoihiBacteria.jpg doesn't communicate the striking visual aspects of that image, namely, the green slimy growths on the rocks in the main image, or the entwined spirals in the inset. Please put those details into the alt text (there's little point putting them in the caption, as they're obvious to sighted readers).
The phrase "found on the flank of Lōʻihi" can't be verified by a non-expert simply by looking at that image; please remove or rephrase it as per WP:ALT#Verifiability.
The alt text for the two maps File:LoihiBathemetric.jpg and File:Loihi 3d.gif concentrates too much on irrelevant details such as "blue" and "orange" and too little on the gist of what the maps say. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for more on this. I suggest replacing the 1st map's alt text with the "north-south ridge..." suggestion above, and the 2nd map's alt text with a simple "3D rendering of the same map as before". By the way, why have two maps of the same thing? Wouldn't it be better to have just one map?
Done. However I am not going to remove the second image because it is in fact different from the first one (I REALLY don't feel like removing any images because then the page will start to look bare). ResMar23:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. I don't have a strong opinion on the two-map issue. I tweaked the remaining alt text problems that I saw, and the result looks good to me. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Well Res, I owe you a lot so I'll help with the review. Each possibly "challengable" sentence requires a citation.
Volcanoes in the Hawaiian Islands arise from the Hawaiʻi hotspot, and, as the youngest volcano in the chain, Lōʻihi is the only Hawaiian volcano in the deep submarine preshield stage of development. - rm the comma after and, not needed
At its summit, Lōʻihi Seamount stands more than 3,000 m (10,000 ft) above the seafloor, making it taller than Mount St. Helens was before its catastrophic 1980 eruption.- This is an American article, so the figures should be ft then mtrs, throughout the article. I know this is one tedious task to complete, but please be sure to convert all the figures to proper format.
Um, Cer, a whiles ago we were told to convert it to meters, and now I have convent everything back into feet? It's not really an issue as long as both are shown. ResMar13:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ceranthor, this is not an "American article" with a focus on all things "American". This is a scientific article about a seamount, and such articles use SI first and foremost, even the American scientists quoted in the sources. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lōʻihi's north and south trending rift zones create a distinctive elongated shape, - better with an WP:ENDASH between north and south, rm the and
Lōʻihi's north and south trending rift zones create a distinctive elongated shape, from which the volcano's Hawaiian name, meaning "long," derives. - cite?
The seafloor under Hawaiʻi is 80-100 million years old and was created at the East Pacific Rise, an oceanic spreading center where new sea floor is created from magma erupting from the mantle. - cite?
When scientists investigated a series of earthquakes off Hawaiʻi in 1970, they discovered that Lōʻihi was an active member of the Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain. - cite?
Again, at the end of the paragraph. We had a problem with overcitation before similar to what you want me to do and simplified it. ResMar13:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the samples were found to be of ancient origin; the oldest dated rock is approximately 300,000 years old. - cite?
Most earthquake swarms at Lōʻihi have lasted less than two days; the two exceptions are the 1991–92 earthquake, lasting several months, and the 1996 event, which was shorter but much more pronounced. - cite?
Lōʻihi Seamount's first depiction on a map was on Survey Chart 4115, a bathymetric rendering of part of Hawaiʻi compiled by the US Coast and Geodetic Survey in 1940. - cite?
At the time, the seamount was non-notable, being one of many in the region. - cite?
Already cited. We can't cite very single fact in the article directly, when it's far more feasible to give a ref at the end of a paragraph of text related to it instead of notching 3-4 of these refs inside of the paragraph.
More later.
I think the prose needs work too in general. It is somewhat choppy, I'd suggest asking one of the copyeditors I previously recommended. ceranthor12:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Choppy? If this FAC fails on vauge intangible ideas I will knock myself in the head. Anyway Ark already copyedited the article as did Vid (multiple times), me, Avenue, JKBrooks, Mattisse, and Micheal Devore. Truth to tell you I REALLY think that further copyediting wouldn't be feasible, it's already had multiple going-overs. ResMar13:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely written comprehensive article. I've tweaked a couple of things, and if your sources include a prediction as to whether the island it creates will ultimately merge with Hawaii (and if so when) it would be nice to mention that. ϢereSpielChequers02:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scientists speculate that Loihi may create its own island, but due to its proximity to the main landmass it's more likely to merge with the rest of the island as the newest "section." Considering its going to be quite a while before this happens no one knows for sure. (Thanks for the support, I really appreciate any sort of votes because this tends to stagnate) ResMar03:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I would have thought that would merit a line such as "ultimately the island formed by Loihi may merge with the neighbouring island of Hawaii'i". ϢereSpielChequers12:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment massaging the prose as I go, please revert any changes to meaning I inadvertently make. My initial impression is that it is on target to pass this time round..queries below.Casliber (talk·contribs) 08:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(although before that, due to lack of study, scientists did not know it was actually active) - I think this is redundant (?)
..and photographed Lōʻihi's summit with the goal of studying whether Lōʻihi is active. - know what you mean but sounds odd.
changed it to potographs to be less akward; if you have any suggestions please give them because I'm not quite sure how to change it. ResMar13:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The researchers were continually met by clouds of sulfide and sulfate. The sudden collapse of Pele's Vents caused a large discharge of hydrothermal material and sulfide. - is the second 'sulfide' here redundant as it is included in the descriptor of 'hydrothermal material'?
Removed the redundant part. I'm really thankful for your extensive copyedit, I'm hoping that it will finally resolve the issues with "choppy" text. Big thanks! ResMar00:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless some new images that have been added that I'm unaware of, the images check out. Of course, I'm a secondary contributor so perhaps I'm biased. However, I have had to remove images from this article in the past, and I believe a few were deleted due to my efforts. I also politely requested the removal of the black smoker image, and ResidentMario eventually complied. So I'm fairly certain the images check out. Viriditas (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Requested image check results:
File:Loihi 3d.gif was created during NOAA-funded work, but are we sure it was created by an NOAA employee?
All NOAA images are in the public domain. We know that the image was created by the Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory (HURL), and we know that HURL was created by NOAA and the University of Hawaii, in partnership, to support the University and NOAA. The people involved have to be approved by NOAA and the equipment needed to capture the image was probably purchased with federal funds. The bottom line is that University doesn't pay anything because the entire program is federally funded.[17] Now, to answer your question. The image was apparently captured by scientist John Smith of the Marine Geology and Geochemistry Division (MGGD) with support from graphic designer Brooks Bays. Both of these people appear to be employees of the University of Hawaii, but their work was funded by NOAA. For more details on these things, see this site. Viriditas (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for coming to the article so late. From what I can see (totally non-expert), it has a historical scope and an encyclopedic prose style. The references and images and technical things all seem to check out. The red-links are viable future articles. It is succinct with room for expansion (but not lacking perse). I give my support.~ZytheTalk to me!14:17, 16 September 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 covers a battle fought between British and French frigate squadrons in 1810 during the Napoleonic Wars. Due to catastrophically poor decision making on the part of the British commodore, the British squadron was completely destroyed in the worst defeat the Royal Navy suffered during the entire war. The article has passed a GA review, a MilitHist A-class review and recently had a MiltHist peer review. It is also part of the Mauritius campaign of 1809-1811 good topic. One slightly unusual aspect of the article is the appearance of a large, high-resolution portrait of the battle - I have canvassed other editors as to the appropriateness of this image (which I rather like), and have received a mixed response, so I'm interested in what people have to say here. Jackyd101 (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text is done; thanks.The alt text needs work. Please see the "alt text" button at the upper right of this review page.
The alt text is mostly just a duplicate of the caption. It needs to be rewritten so that it (a) does not duplicate the caption and (b) describes useful visual appearance that can be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image. Please see WP:ALT #Difference from captions (though that example alt text is a bit long).
Many flag icons have no alt text. Most of these can simply add something like "alt=France" since they are icons for their countries. A few should instead add "|link=" because they are next to text that already identifies their countries and are therefore purely decorative. See WP:ALT #When to specify.
Still needs a bit of improvement (it's frustrating, I know!). Basically, alt text is like describing what a picture looks like to a friend over the phone. Take the "Scuttling of Sirius" image. Most readers would not know what the Sirius looks like if you told them "HMS Sirius in flames"; you would just tell them "ship in flames". In short, pretend as if you have never seen the images before and you had describe them. I hope that clears it up a little bit. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but still needs work. "Map of Île de France" merely repeats the caption (which is not recommended; WP:ALT #What not to specify) and doesn't convey any useful information to the visually impaired reader. "French ships are in blue, the British in red." is fairly-useless irrelevant detail and should be removed; likewise for "High resolution painting". (See WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples.) Several phrases cannot be verified by a non-expert reader who looks only at the images, and should be reworded or removed; these include "of the Battle of Grand Port", "A photograph of Grand Port in 2007," "the memorial to the battle", "on the Arc de Triomphe". The flags are all purely decorative, and should use "|link=" as per WP:ALT#When to specify. There is no need to repeat the alt text of the battle painting; the detail's alt text should list just details that are obvious there but not in the main painting, to avoid repetition. Generally speaking, alt text should not repeat anything's that in the caption, and proper names in particular shouldn't be in alt text (unless the image itself verifies them). Eubulides (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I originally wrote out a list of about 25 seperate things that I don't understand from what you wrote above, but I felt that might seem a bit obtuse just to stick down here. Can you link to a page which explains this for people with a low tolerance for technical stuff? I've tried looking at some of the other articles here at FAC, but I don't really see the difference between them and this, so I'm still confused. As an example: could "Map of Île de France" be better written as "Map of large brown island in a light blue sea" or is this wrong? I'm really not trying to be difficult, I just can't make head or tail of this requirement (When did it come in?)--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it looks pretty good now. The map was the biggest problem; its alt text focused too much on irrelevant detail (e.g., the color of the ocean) and not enough on the gist of what the map tells the sighted reader. I tweaked it to fix the remaining problems I saw. Eubulides (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help - I was wondering though, why is it irrelevant to tell a blind reader about the medium of the image (i.e. drawing, painting, engraving, photograph etc.). This information is rarely in the caption, and yet it can help a knowledgeable reader determine the era, context and even in some case the style of the image (for example, knowing that an image is an engraving tells me quite a lot about its origin and context, as indeed does a photograph)?--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not always irrelevant, and admittedly different editors' opinions differ on this but I'll tell you my opinion. It's a question of cost (adding extra words to the alt text) versus benefit (the useful info the reader can extract from the extra words). We've had feedback multiple times that brief alt text is better for screen readers, so the cost is real. Usually the reader wants to know about the topic in question, not about how the illustration was made. That is, the illustration is a means to the end of understanding the topic, not the end itself. Similarly, the style of the image is often irrelevant to the topic. Obviously if the article is about art, then medium and style are typically the focus of the image and should be mentioned in the alt text; but if the article is about military history, the alt text should be focused on the visual aspects of the image that are relevant to military history. In this particular case, the fact that an image is an engraving may help to date it somewhat, but much more-precise info about the event is already available in the text of the article, so saying that the image is an engraving isn't that useful in this context. (End of personal opinion.) It's not a big deal, and if you feel that this detail is important in the alt text, please feel free to put it back in. Eubulides (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Despite a strong interest in history this is not an area I am overly familiar with. However, this article is well written and the story well developed that it makes a very interesting read. While I scoured the article looking for something that could be fixed, I could find nothing. Deserves to be an FA. Apterygial11:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once again, you have written a masterful article on a little known "incident" of the Napoleonic wars. This is an area in which I am familiar, and I can add these additional comments. First, Neatly done contextualizing of the battle. You've nicely set the larger scope of the Indian Ocean campaigns in perspective which, as you know from some of the GA reviews I've worked on, is a top priority. Having set the larger context, you narrow the focus down gradually, which I especially like: while many people have considerable interest and some expertise in the Napoleonic land wars, fewer have some knowledge of the war in the Indian and Pacific ocean theaters. Third, your use of images is entirely appropriate, and yes, you are indeed fortunate to have some high quality images to select from; they enhance the text, and tell the story in their own way, not with all they details, of course, but well enough so that a non-reader, or non English reader, could sort out the general idea.
That said, I have a couple of suggestions and one question:
Question What happened to Lieutenant Morice? How was the message delivered?
Morice broke his leg in several places when he fell from the horse and never fully recovered use of the limb. Although the source does not explicitly state it, the message would certainly have been passed to another despatch rider almost immediately. I have not added this information into the article as a) it seemed an unnecessary diversion and b) there are too many holes in the sourcing to put it as simply as I have done here.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
: in "Background" : "The British response to the French deployment was led by Commodore Josias Rowley, ..." Josias Rowley led the British response to French deployment...?
in "lead": "...French squadron under Captain Guy-Victor Duperré approached the bay nine days later the British commander, Captain Samuel Pym, decided to lure them into coastal waters where his superior numbers could be brought to bear against the French ships... to lure it (squadron).... or is the plural the British version?
in "Attempted withdrawal:"...At 07:00, Lambert notified Pym that he had cleared the reef that separated Iphigenia from the..." The redundancy of "that" is confusing: how about that he had cleared the reef separating
in "aftermath": ".....their courts martial inquiring into the loss of their ships..." inquiry?
In this case and this era, there was (specifically) a court martial held for all of the ship's commissioned officers whenever a Royal Navy ship was lost through whatever means (beyond use as a fireship or blockship or other deliberate destruction). It was standard, and in cases of ships lost in battle was usually unanimously closed in favour of the ship's officers. That Willoughby was criticised at all was a major (although not fatal) blow to his career. I'm not sure how much of this detail needs to go into the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The linking of "harbour" in the lead may be a case of overlinking
The term "prize officer" needs explanation.
The term "spiking the guns" needs explanation.
Although the term "warping the ship" has a wikilink, given its obscurity to lay people and its importance to the run of battle, I would actually explain it in the article text. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image sizes: TINY. Can we have them enlarged, please, especially the last one, the map, the Grand-Port, and the Sirius – in fact, most of them (detailed). Tony(talk)03:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have delinked harbour and lagoon. In my naval articles, I always try to provide links for technical naval terms: thus cannon is linked to distinguish it from carronade, which were also widely used at the time and other less common forms of artillery that sometimes appear (like the bizarre cannonade gun found on East Indiamen, or swivel guns used on smaller vessels). blockade is actually quite a technical strategic term in this instance and I have had requests for it to be linked on other articles and I try to remain consistent with this. As for United Kingdom, I have no objection to delinking it in the article text, but I thought it was standard to link combatants the first time they appear, no matter who they are (and its also worth noting when looking at this that the official name of the country actually changed during the war from "Great Britain" to "United Kingdom").
As for the images, I know that in the past I have been told numerous times at FAC that adding px numbers to images in the article is actually forbidden because it can cause problems for some people at some screen resolutions: is this no longer the case (the rules on images seem to keep changing all the time)?
Comment. I have always felt that discouraging set pixel sizes has been interpreted too strongly in the past - it's a suggestion, not a rule - but I think the current guideline is that if a size is set, then the size should be 300 pixels (or more). From Wikipedia:Picture tutorial: "Typically if you specify a width in pixels, it should be at least 300px, so that it's no smaller than the user's preferred width." And I fully support making the pictures larger as well, especially the map which requires a large size to discern detail. SnowFire (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Grand_Port_mg6971.jpg needs the copyright info for the original painter, not just the photographer (in particular b/death dates, as there's no link to the artist on en.wiki.)
OK, had ago with this and the other Gilbert works, let me know if there are any additional problems.
File:GrandPort2.jpg invalid license if you don't have the date of publication or know the author.
I know who the painter is, and the style is clearly nineteenth century, but I will contact the uploader for more information.
Between us the uploader and I have been unable to discern any clearer information on the date of death of the artist in this instance and so I have removed the image until this has been established.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. This source starts the discussion on p. 29. "rapidly approaching from the southeast" was not in the source. The article claims "returning from the Comoros Islands." but the source says "they were both proceeding at that time from the Cape to Madras". "Île de France" does not appear on either page of the source, and you cannot sail to it as it is in the center of France. The "Isle of France", i.e. Mauritius in French, is mentioned. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. "Willoughby brought Nereide close to Île de la Passe to combine their fire and hastily recalled his boats, which were carrying 160 men back to Nereide from a raid near Grand Port that morning" Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. The above is quite different from the depiction in the source and I do not know where to start. The events as written above, with the "hasty recall", etc, do not seem to appear that way in the source. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. The source says six were destroyed, not "dismounted". I see nothing about a canon discharging unexpectedly in the source. I don't see anything that is close to the last part of the sentence. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. "The French crew drove the captured East Indiaman on shore, joined shortly afterwards by Minerve, Bellone and later by Victor, so that by 18:30 the entire French force was grounded and all but Bellone prevented from firing their main broadsides by beached ships blocking their arc of fire" Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. The source says that the Siri "threw herself onto a coral reef", and Magicienne and Iphigenia then altered their course to avoid the same mishap; but this did not prevent the forme" I see nothing besides these two ships grounding themselves in any way. On p. 32, it says "At 2 p.m. they moored besides the Sirius and Nereid." "moored" is far different than "grounded". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't think you have phrased your objection very clearly and as a result I'm a little unsure what you are asking me to do. As far as I can make out you are asking:
1) Are you asking for that specific sentence to be given a source (its totally non-controversial, and I believe off-hand that I can attribute it to both James and Clowes at least)? the Macmillan reference is for Duperre's intention to enter the harbour via Ile de la Passe (which it immediately follows), which does appear on the page. In addition please note that Duperre's stay in the Comoros Islands is already mentioned and sourced above that and so doesn't need to be again (and the Madras voyage you refer to was a British squadron captured by Duperre - this is covered above in Background). Also, obviously I am not referring to the "Ile de France" in Northern France but to Mauritius. However that name is anachronistic for this time period. (Note that when I link to the island, the link is piped to Mauritius).
2) Are you asking for a source regarding specifically the "hasty recall" (again, I think James and Clowes cover this)? The Macmillan reference does however clearly mention the return of 160 men from a raiding operation, so is actually very close to the text.
3) The "dismounted" word comes from either James or Clowes and is a far more accurate description than the rather dramatic "destroyed" (imagine the forces required to actually destroy an iron cannon). Although perhaps the exact wording of the second half of the sentance is not replicated in the source, the implication is definately there. However if this is insufficient for you I'm sure several additional sources can be found.
4) I see absolutely no problem here - what do you think "disabled" means in this context?
5) There is also no problem here: firstly you seem to have confused some of the French ships with some of the British ones, and secondly the source quite clearly backs up the article in the final two paragraphs of that page.
So in summary, there doesn't really seem to be a lot wrong with this source on the evidence you have raised. For an action of this complexity several sources are required to describe each stage, and it would be obviously impractical to reference each word or even each sentance as it appears in the source texts. If you have any further questions please feel free to ask however.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. A citation is supposed to cover everything before it. The article should be fully cited. 2. The textual difference is in the way it is described, as there is no mention of a "recall" order given. If it is in another source, please cite that source on the page. 3. If that comes from another source then please cite that source for the sentence. 4. Disabled could mean anything from wounded, stunned, or just knocked unconscious. Casualties normally implies severe wounding or death. 5. I checked the final two paragraphs and I see nothing of the sort. There is mention of a mudbank and a shoal, but neither are shore. At most, there are two ships that could be seen as stuck on anything. There is no way to say the source accurate depicts what the article says. I have now officially read page 33 and 32 for the 6th time and can see no possible way to justify what is said in the article by what is found in the source. Furthermore, I did not "object". I provided a source to article analysis for reviewers to see in regards to how the sources were used in the article. If others wish to, they can object over it. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will provide additional sources for the first three points. With four, I'm afraid you are incorrect: a Casualty (person) is somebody rendered unable to continue fighting by whatever means, be it death, injury, capture or even simple absence. Thus disabled (which is in fact a rather odd term for the source to use in this context) and casualty mean the same thing here (i.e. killed or wounded, since no one was captured or went missing during the engagement). As for 5, I can see now where you are confused: look at Shoal, specifically the term harbour bar which is what we are looking at here (although none of the source use that specific terminology) - it is a sandbar, mudbank or similar natural structure that gathers at the mouth of a river or in this case a number of small rivers. In this case, the shoals at Grand Port are indeed part of the shoreline, as opposed to a coral reef that lies slightly offshore. The British ships grounded on coral reefs, which did terrible damage to their hulls, resulting in their eventual destruction. The French ships grounded on sand or mud and thus could be safely brought off after the battle. If you wish I can clarify this a little more in the text, although I don't have sources that specifically back up what I just said (its implicit - naval histories tend to assume a fairly high level of knowledge about such things among their readers from the start). I'm not sure what to do about your penultimate point: I've read it again, and page 33 quite clearly states that Ceylon, Victor, Minerve and Bellone had all grounded (i.e. stuck) on a shoal/mudbank/shore while Sirius and 'Magicienne had grounded on coral reefs. Finally I apologise regarding the word objection - I merely meant it to be descriptive and did not seek to cast aspersions against you.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From what I know of military history, casualties must be long term. Disabled could merely mean at that moment. The term is too vague. Please find a different source. "are indeed part of the shoreline" Please find another source for this part then (and move the citation forward and have grounded on the shoreline cited to this ref explaining the shoreline), as the source used does not seem to verify this as it is too vague. Regardless, I believe your final point is from this passage: "in so doing, and whilst she was slipping her front cable, her stern ropes were severed by a shot, with the result that the south-eastern breeze drove her right behind the Ceylon, against a shoal on which she touched. The Ceylon, unequaled to the combined volleys of two frigates, cut her cables and hoisted top sails to follow the Minerve, came in contact with the poop of that vessel and gently pushed her forward... The three French vessels now got jammed together." From what I can see, one ship can be demonstrated to be on the shoal. The others can only be declared to touch that other ship or be near it. At no point does it say that the others were grounded or were anything but touching each other with one that was grounded. Does that make sense? The source is way too vague. If you have a clearer source, please use it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(deindent) First of all, casualties do not have to be long term: indeed the British Army definition of "casualty" was traditionally any man who failed to be counted at roll call following a battle for any reason (obviously this is only one specific interpretation and not the one being used here, which I have described above). Secondly, I am confused about what you are asking for: do you want to see a source explaining what a shoreline is? Finally, I have now sourced the first two of your points and rephrased the last as I cannot now locate the text describing the recall order (although obviously one must have been given and I'm sure I've seen it somewhere). Please note that James p. 286 quite comfortably covers both of your final two points with the quote given in the Attempted withdrawal section. I really do not see any problem with using this source in conjunction with the others presented - when writing an article it is by combining several sources that the most accurate and neutral account can be produced.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not want a source defining shoreline. I want a source that says that the above is part of the shoreline. Otherwise, making such claims would fall under original research (so, add a citation so it wont be). You seem to have plenty of sources to chose from, and I am sure googlebooks can help you find more if you aren't able to find it now. If, as you state, the James source covers it, then adding it should cover the problems, no? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, this is still not clear to me: are you asking for a source that definatively states that at Grand Port the sand and mud banks form part of the shoreline? I would be astonished if one exisited in the format you are asking for - any naval history worth quoting would automatically assume its readers understood that (see shore). What do you think shoreline means? The James quote given in the article that you mention above is typical of this attitude in histories - do you want me to reference it twice?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was asking for another source that says they were all "grounded". As I quoted, it seems to vague from the above to see them all as grounded, as some appear to simply be against another but not quite grounded. I am sure another source would have it in a clearer manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of bringing this discussion to a close, I have used James to supplement Macmillan in this instance. I maintain that Macmillan is quite clear on this point and that no additional reference is necessary, but have added another in the spirit of compromise.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:19, 12 September 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's of appropriate length, provides necessary and concise information on the topic, is well-researched and -referenced, and is of a generally high quality. Thanks. —Anonymous DissidentTalk05:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added my name per AD's comments on my talk page. If there are any concerns about sources or if someone wants access to the sources, I will try and process that quickly. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport: An engrossing, comprehensive article on an interesting corner of literary history. The prose is not quite there, yet, but I believe it can quite quickly be brought up to standard. Sources look good. Here are my detailed comments:-
Lead
"...under the pseudonym of" – "of" is unnecessary
Fixed.
Questionable use of quote marks: ..."war" on the "armies" of Grub Street. In the main text "the armies of Grub Street" is all within quotes; I suggest you use the same form here, and probably drop the quotes round "war".
Fixed.
"...the letter, initially attributed to a 'Humphrey Meanwell', was in fact written by Fielding operating under a pseudonym." The last four words are intuitive and could be omitted.
Fixed.
Background
Opening phrase jars: "a" followed immediately by "the". I know "The" is part of the journal's title, but I don't think the "a" is necessary.
Fixed.
"Published pseudonymously..." Again, we can infer pseudonymous from the previous text, and the word can be omitted.
Fixed.
Third paragraph: some work needed here.
You say Fielding began "plotting his next course of literary work". That reads as rather stilted - is "course of" necessary?
Fixed,
To link with what follows in the paragraph, you need to say somewhere that he decided that this next literary work would take the form of a journal. Otherwise, when you say "he gave it the title The Covent-Garden Journal", it is not clear what "it" refers to.
Fixed.
It also says: "In alluding to his past publication...". The sentence should not start with "In". Also, from what has been said, it wasn't "his" publication, merely something he gave a hand to. I suggest "the earlier" replaces "his past". Thus: "Alluding to the earlier publication,..." etc
Fixed.
Could you be a bit more precise than "...because of Amelia."?
Thankfully, google has a copy of this one also (I have physical copies of all of them, but this is convenient for others to check) - p. 47 says "More aggressively than he had done in his earlier periodicals, Fielding here makes wit (or liveliness, or urbanity) a distinguishing, thus unifying...". The "not seen" is connected to "a certain degree" and a paraphrase of "more aggressively than he had done..." to the end of the sentence. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The structure of the sentence beginning "Exceptions included..." is far too complicated, with long subclauses and an immense quotation. And while I think of it..."Exceptions included" sounds a bit like something Sam Goldwyn might have said. So I suggest "Exceptions were...", then reconstruct the material in a slightly more digestible form.
Exceptions were those in numbers 42, 50 and 58. No. 42 mocked the Country Tories by imagining how an Ancient Greek or Roman would react to party politics: "...convey [him] to a Hunting-Match, or Horse Race, or any other Meeting of Patriots. Will he not immediately conclude from all the Roaring and Ranting, the Hallowing and the Hazzaing, the Gaming and Drinking, [...] that he is actually present at the Orgia of Bacchus, or the Celebration of some such Festival?". Number 50 blamed the growth of the London mob on poverty laws, while number 58 targeted the "Independent Electors of Westminster"
"In his literary reviews, Fielding often wrote with a biased hand." This, and similar judgements such as "Fielding's reviews were not always partisan", and "Fielding had a noted tendency to be prejudiced toward certain authors", need to be attributed, otherwise they read as POV.
No access to that source either.
The source. It covers multiple pages, so you will have to look around. Saying that a work is opinion based is not controversial, and they are already attributed. This wasn't a newspaper but series of editorials that were printed as a satirical journal. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the source says what you say it says. However, when you say that Fielding often wrote with a biased hand, gave immoderate praise, or had noted tendencies to be prejudiced in certain directions, whose opinions are these? Although the comments are cited, we need to be told specifically whose opinions/judgements these are. Thus the paragraph should be introduced: "According to the Battestins' analysis..." or some such. Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't POV or controversial. They do not need to be directly quoted. Based on your rational, saying someone wrote an opinion column would need to be attributed directly to a critic. It is not an "According to Battestins" as there is no critical involvement of opinion. It is a -fact-. The journals were not news, they were not objective, nor is there any possibility of claiming they were anything but parody and opinion pieces. Thus, there is no way to claim that the above characterization is even close to being controversial enough to warrant such statements. Find -one- source that claims the journal is objective and neutral. Unless you do, you have no grounds to claim it needs to be directly attributed, especially when it is a common statement in -all- works on Fielding dealing with the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay on picking this up. OK, I think you are arguing that Fielding's unquestioned status as a polemicist means that his writing was naturally biased, immoderate and prejudiced, and that these terms do not require attribution as they are self-evident, not a matter of opinion. I am half-convinced. If no other reviewer picks up on this I won't press the point, but part of me is uncomfortable with not knowing whose words these descriptive phrases are. Brianboulton (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, the language can be toned down. The term "prejudice" tends to have a negative connotation in the US with racial undertones, so that word could easily be swapped for another (prejudice just means choosy or selective, or in favour of something). Immoderate shouldn't have such a connotation, as it means that he went out of his way to support his friends, i.e. he wrote puff pieces and rather admittedly (most journals and reviews of the day contained puff pieces and little objectivity). Here are some other sources: this says that there was no political bias, but also "he was not always polite in his wit, or restrained in his observations... assumed, also, the right of censorship over his contemporaries-a right to ridicule and criticise them.." This source has quite a bit about his views - "he endorses Richardson by way of censoring Rabelais and Aristophanes". This is Fielding's attack on Smollett. As you can see, it is an attack piece (quite literally, as it has a lot about military and conflict in it). Another describing the opinionated aspect - "Much like Steele, Fielding had declared himself a moral censor and regularly held forth on the reigning vices and follies in his periodical writing." There are more, but it is hard to find the info available on google books for others to verify. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The first four numbers of The Journal are of particular note because they featured an account of the "Paper War." The words "are of particular note because they" should be deleted as editorial comment and therefore POV
Fixed.
"with writers" better than "with the writers"
Fixed.
"...for the sake of generating sales" is wordy. Why not "to generate sales"?
Fixed.
"Fielding challenged the armies of Grub Street". Was this a challenge on a specific issue? Otherwise the word "confront" might be a better choice.
Fixed.
(Second paragraph) The words "In this way" are redundant
Fixed.
"especial" in this usage is OK but archaic; "special" is preferable.
The last sentence of the section requires a citation.
Meanwell controversy: isn't "controversy" rather over-egging it? (controversy: dispute, argument or debate, esp. one concerning a matter about which there is strong disagreement. Collins English Dictionary) Whats a good word for a "storm in a teacup"?
Unnecessarily wordy: "Fielding himself had fallen into poor health" Perhaps "Fielding's health was poor,..."
Fixed.
Several references to The Journal. I believe this should be "the Journal". For instance, if a paper was called The London Advertiser you might refer to it as the Advertiser, but not as The Advertiser.
Fixed.
General
I think the whole text could do with a punctuation audit. I spotted a few cases of possible over-use of commas.
I'd have to go back and look for specific examples - it was more an impression I got, but punctuation styles can vary. Let's leave it, unless another reviewer picks up on it. Brianboulton (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alt text is done; thanks. For more on the why images need alt text, please see WP:ALT and the "alt text" entry in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support—'tis very good. I've taken the liberty of enlarging the images. MoS advice on this is now clearer—they tend to be rather detailed. Please adjust if you don't like them. Tony(talk)08:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree - the images (apart from Smollett) overwhelm the text. They could be increased a little from their original sizes, but not I think to this extent. Brianboulton (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added in the sourcing for the version found in Battestin and Battestin, even though the quality is different (his version is much more crisp and glossy than my copy was). It is enough to verify PD Old. If someone wants to get a better version, the Battestin and Battestin version seems to be a good source. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, providing you can inline cite "Though the true author of the pamphlet remains uncertain, it was believed at the time to be Fielding's work".Ironholds (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I turned the period into a semi-colon to make it more apparent that the two sentences are connected and part of the same source. It is better than having a redundant citation or beating the reviewer over the head until he admits defeat. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Postmen, Anglo-Saxon kings, shredded corpses, Natalie Portman, bishops, decorative porcelain, German air-raids – there should be something for everyone here. A frozen-in-time snapshot of the social and aesthetic values of the England of the 1900s, and an unusual collaboration between four leading figures in very different artistic disciplines (George Frederic Watts, Ernest George, William De Morgan and Mary Fraser Tytler), with cameo appearances from a broad gallery of Eminent Victorians. – iridescent20:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. (Sorry I didn't get to this earlier.. been a wacky week here!) Ealdgyth - Talk20:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why this nomination has received so little attention thus far. Perhaps it's because the opening paragraph is rather uninspiring. Basically, it informs us that the park is a park, and tells us where it is. It defines the subject, but doesn't explain why it is notable. The most historical and culturally interesting feature of the park, it would seem, is the Watts memorial, and this should definitely be mentioned in the introductory paragraph.
More generally, I think the lead is overdetailed, especially in the final paragraph which lists the actors in the film made in the park. This is not lead stuff; the lead should be a summary of the article's major points. There is probably too much detail in paragraphs two and three as well.
So, as a start, I would redraft the lead, with a punchier beginning, and trim the contents of the other paragraphs. I also think that the infobox image caption should identify the memorial more clearly. Personally, I would ditch the infobox and use a larger version of the photograph so that the details were clearer, but then I am averse to infoboxes on principle.
Agree regarding the lead. I was trying to keep it in a strict chronological order (graveyard → park → memorial → film), and thus wasn't mentioning the memorial and Closer until later, but I've restructured it.
I've taken the actors' names out of the lead - I agree they weren't necessary there. Regarding paragraphs two or three, I can't see a way to trim them without losing significant information; I don't think the lead needs to give the whole story, but IMO it should provide enough context that a reader who doesn't go on to read the rest of the article would still understand what it was about, and the complicated history (and need to explain the name) makes it hard to summarize more succinctly.
I generally dislike infoboxes, but I added one to this article; in this particular case I think it corrals key facts (size, date, location) which could otherwise quite easily get lost. The image isn't particularly inspiring, but it's a "least worst"; we have almost a hundred images of the park, but they're almost all of particular architectural details. This one I think works best of them at conveying the cramped nature of the park (despite being arguably the biggest park in the entire City, it's smaller than a lot of American houses' backyards), and is one of the few to include enough people to give a good sense of scale. – iridescent20:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support:Leaning to supportOppose: (see below): You've done a pretty good job dealing with my and other editors' points, but I am still troubled by a possible lack of clarity in defining "City of London", despite the link. One of your opening statements says: "...it is one of the City of London's largest parks." Will American (or for that matter, any non-Brit) readers realise that "City of London" and "London" mean two entirely different things? Or will they have the impression that this tiny park is one of the biggest in the whole of London? I suggest amending the start of the article to read something like: "Postman's Park is a park in the historical "City of London", the square-mile district which comprises the capital's main business quarter." - or something similar. You would then have to amend the subsequent text slightly, but the situation would be clarified. My only other real concern is possible over-imaging. The pics are generally well-chosen and apposite, but 19 of them plus a gallery is a bit overwhelming, perhaps? Brianboulton (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very reluctant to have "explanatory text" regarding City of London, particularly in somewhere as prominent as the lead (I'd have no issue with a footnote, but people would be unlikely to notice that). As per other comments below, most of the readers of this will be speakers of British English, by the nature of the topic, and the "City of Foo"/"Greater Foo" distinction between "original place from which a larger area draws its name"/"larger area" is absolutely standard British English usage (City of London/Greater London, City of Sydney/Greater Sydney, City of Manchester/Greater Manchester, City of Toronto/Greater Toronto, City of Glasgow/Greater Glasgow...). To include an explanation of "City of London" in the lead would IMO be as obtrusive as "The Empire State Building is an Art Deco skyscraper in New York City, the center of the New York metropolitan area on the eastern coast of the state of New York". I'd absolutely oppose "the historical City of London which comprises the capital's main business quarter"; "historical" makes it sound either like it doesn't exist any more, or that it has a significantly higher concentration of historic sites than other areas, neither of which is the case, while "main business quarter" is meaningless in a polycentric city like London. London has 48 official "centres"; the City is the business centre for the Stock Exchange and business linked to it, but Canary Wharf is the centre for the banking industry, the West End is the centre for commercial offices and tourism, South Kensington is the cultural centre, Southwark is the home of City Hall and the centre for local government, the City of Westminster is the national capital...
*I'm sorry, but reluctantly I must oppose on this. All readers, not just "speakers of British English", are entitled to understand your article. If there was a small district within New York City called the "City of New York" it would be necessary to explain this to non-American readers. That is the analogy you should be considering. You don't have to use my wording, that was just a suggestion. Find your own phrasing by all means, but make the clarification. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it would be awkward, how about "the City of London in central London" or similar? I am really reluctant to get into an essay on the differences between City of London/County of London/Greater London/London, especially in the lead, and I really don't believe that "City of London" causes any confusion in this context. The City of London and City of Westminster have had these names - and (aside from a few minor changes) the same boundaries - for over a thousand years; "Greater London" is a purely administrative set of lines-on-the-map drawn up in 1965. – iridescent17:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might just do if you extended your wording to "the City of London district within central London." Otherwise I suggest you ask Moni, as a non-Brit reviewer, whether she thinks that your present wording will make it clear to non-British readers that "City of London" refers to only a small part of "London" (less than 1% of the metropolitan area), and that Postman's Park is one of the largest parks in this small area. Brianboulton (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? It makes it clear that "City of London" refers to the formal city boundaries, not the whole Greater London sprawl, without getting too long-winded. – iridescent19:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that should do it. I have struck oppose and changed to support. (I did this nearly 24 hours ago but for some reason my edits didn't register). Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree regarding overuse of images. This is effectively an article on civic planning, architecture and the visual arts, and images are necessary to illustrate all three aspects. As I know from writing the alt-text, most of the concepts illustrated by the images are very difficult to explain verbally. There are only three images in the article which I'd consider non-essential (the infobox image, discussed above; De Morgan's portrait, which isn't necessary but I think provides context in illustrating one of the key figures; the Watts Mortuary Chapel, which doesn't relate directly to this article but shows Mary Watts's design style, as well as illustrating the complex design which ended up diverting all her time from the Postman's Park project)—every other image directly illustrates a specific point. – iridescent11:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't oppose on the question of images, but as you are evidently admitting that three are non-essential it might be an idea to drop these. The article would still be very generously illustrated. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sentence: "Following the 2004 film Closer, starring Natalie Portman, Julia Roberts, Jude Law and Clive Owen, itself based on the 1997 play Closer by Patrick Marber, key scenes of both of which were set in the park, Postman's Park experienced a resurgence of interest." reads awkwardly, there are too many commas. Can the "starring" be ommited, and possibly "itself based on the 1997 play Closer by Patrick Marber" be changed to "based on the 1997 play of the same name"? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It could, but I can't see an improvement. Unless you mean taking the cast list out altogether – which I'd be reluctant to do, as it's the four stars who provide the context that this is a big-budget studio blockbuster, not some obscure British indie film (I assume most readers' assumption regarding a film adopted from a play about a stripper stealing her identity from a memorial to dead Victorians) – "starring" would have to be replaced by "featuring", which is even longer. I really don't like the idea of "based on the 1997 play of the same name", which would mean inserting an easter egg link. Not sure what others think of that one and I'll defer to the majority here. – iridescent19:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually second thoughts - are you referring to the listing of the stars in the article, or in the lead? My reply above is in the context of listing in the article body; if you mean the lead, I agree and they've been removed per Brian above. – iridescent20:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I agree – "following Closer, there was renewed interest; key scenes were set in the park" breaks the chronological and causal development of the original "following Closer, of which key scenes were set in the park, there was renewed interest" – but it's not something I'd editwar over. – iridescent21:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well previously it was "key scenes of both of which", which personally sounds awkward. The way I formed the current revision was to leave the mention of key scenes to the end, to emphasise the fact that the interest resurgence was as a result of them being filmed actually in the park itself. Feel free to change it back if my explanation doesn't suffice, I'm not one who gives a hoo-ha over "edit wars" or the like. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Moni3
First of all...dude, gross. Secondly, it's quite fascinating.
Oppose until the following resolved:Support with some work on the lead taking place on the talk page.
You've got a lead within a lead here. The first paragraph is a summary of the lead. Can you simplify?
Cite the notes, please, per Alice Ayers.
In the William De Morgan memorial tablets section, we have the Great 2009 Battle of MOSIMAGES Guideliness. The image of Morgan looks right so it should be on the left. The Alice Ayers tiles sandwich the text and it's distracting. I think it would be fine to knock Morgan's image under the 2nd level section header to give it more room. I don't know the reason for that rule anyway. Does anyone else?
Similar sandwiching is done in the Postman's Park after the death of Mary Watts section. I'm not sure what it is, but the sandwiching thing makes me completely lose my rhythm in reading. Maybe it's the movement of the eyes, used to whole lines, half lines, whole lines. I get more ADD and I didn't think that really possible.
Cheesman Park in Denver was a public park/burial ground for squatters and the homeless until the early 20th century. I vaguely recall stories of vandals and thieves digging up the graves to steal jewelry and whatnot, and it was quite mismanaged, causing careless graverobbers to leave open coffins or remains on the city streets. Savannah too had a yellow fever epidemic so severe that bodies were simply stacked in the squares and not buried. But I heard that on a ghost tour, which I think is half full of lies anyway. At any rate, very interesting. --Moni3 (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead-within-the-lead is the result of a rewrite per Brianboulton above. Initially, the first paragraph was just a simple "it's a park in the City of London" summary. The lead has to mention the memorial, since it's the most significant thing there, but merging paragraph 3 on the memorial with the "It's a park. It used to be a graveyard." paragraph 2 would, I think, overwhelm it - I can't see an obvious way to trim paragraph 3 further.
Notes all cited (except for one which I've removed as I decided it wasn't relevant).
I'd happily move De Morgan up to under the level 2 header, but (while I have no idea why) that seems to be one part of MOSIMAGE that's strictly enforced; I've moved him up anyway as I agree that, aside from anything else, a picture of someone should be next to the paragraph about him. I know the Ayres tile is distracting but I think it's necessary to have a picture of one of the tiles in this particular section, as there's so much talk about the design. If necessary, the De Morgan picture is expendable, although I think it's nice to give an idea what he looked like.
I've removed two photos from "After the death of..." - it's a shame to lose File:Christ Church Greyfriars, August 2009.JPG as it's a very striking image, but it's not of the park itself. File:Postman's Park London.JPG was there mainly to keep the left-right alternation in place, and thus allow the very long and tall image of the drinking fountain (which I think is necessary) to stay on the right and thus not interfere with the headers. – iridescent23:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Brian can participate in this part here on the FAC or the talk page. I might try a rewrite of the lead, somewhat simplified and maybe we can reach a compromise.
Consider my idea for Alice Ayers, that if you have so many images some of them might fit in a gallery. Personally, I found this one striking and I'm glad you kept it in. --Moni3 (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is very odd; my impression has always been that the guideline was for all headers from level three downwards, and that only level-two headers were excepted, presumably due to the line and large font size. Indeed, this is what the Manual of Style says. However, the wording in Accessibility has remained been pretty much the same since the guideline appeared in November 2007. I can only attribute this to a lapse, and, for the sake of consistency and common sense, I have taken the liberty to adjust the sentence in question. Waltham, The Duke of03:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments from Maralia
Some of the images were sandwiching text, and/or impinging on subsequent section headers. I made a single edit to tweak their positions within each section; undo if you hate it, but I think it's an improvement.
I don't feel that the second St Botolph's Aldersgate image adds much; no offense to the photographer but unfortunately it looks rather more like a portrait of a tree. (oh - I've just refreshed and read Moni's comments and your responses above. Perhaps replace this image with the Greyfriars one you removed?)
The conversion figures could use a consistency check (I see "£56 thousand" and "£19,000").
A couple issues with the sentence "Hailed as "The last great Victorian", on 7 July 1904 a memorial service was held in St Paul's Cathedral, 300 yards (270 m) south of Postman's Park": (1) why capitalize The? (2) the subject of the introductory phrase is Watts, yet the subject of the remainder of the sentence is a memorial service. Those rubbed me the wrong way too: the dangling modifier is now fixed (I've left the capital "The" as a Victorianism, for contemporary colour). --JN46602:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm decidedly not asking you to change this, but I wanted to point out that most Americans simply will not get the British usage of "in the event". Just food for thought.
"On 13 June 1917, Metropolitan Police officer P.C." - is there a less awkward method than three nouns in a row to communicate that he was a police officer?
"The tablets are arranged in three rows"...okay, there are three rows. "directly below in the fourth row"...oh wait, there are four rows. "The first and fifth of the five rows remain empty."...color me thoroughly confused. I've not tried to read/copyedit the remainder of that section since I can't quite understand it yet.
Altogether this is very well done. You've done a fine job of explaining the provenance of the parcels of land—I suspect this aspect might be the most interesting to you. I really can't get over their using the old gravestones to fence in the new park; bullets would fly over the mere suggestion of such a thing in the US. Maralia (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've undone one of the image moves (in the William De Morgan memorial tablets section). Even though it will possibly cause this FAC to fail, I think it's more important for the article to be accessible to the reader, than to comply with a completely arbitrary guideline. There is no good reason for it to be unacceptable to have an image beneath a level 3 header but acceptable beneath a level 2 or level 4 header, and the dubious reasoning behind this guideline ("it disconnects the heading from the text it precedes") would only apply, in the case of a tall thin image like this, if the article were being read at an extreme zoom setting on a tiny screen. Accessibility is important, but it becomes unreasonable when the article is made less accessible to the vast majority of its readers just to pander to a hypothetical reader viewing the article at 1000% zoom. (FWIW, I've tested this particular instance and even on an ipod screen the image doesn't cause the text and header to disconnect.) The other image moves look fine.
Disagree about the second St Botolph's image. (Note: I didn't take the photo in question; this isn't me being precious about wanting "my" photo used.) This is a very distinctive building, with its tall thin bell tower, and only including File:St Botolph's Aldersgate.JPG would give a distorted impression that the building is a long low shed. The cramped and irregular shape of the park means there is no angle other than from the park from which another photo could be taken; besides, this is an article on the park, so the illustration ought to show the view from the park - this also shows how the park runs right up to the edge of the church.
The "thousand"/"1,000" were due to my being inconsistent in using {{formatprice}} and {{formatnum}} - fixed.
"The last great Victorian" is capitalised in that way because that's what was used at the time. Late 19th-century usage of capitalisation differed from modern usage.
I can't think of a transatlantic equivalent to "in the event". An Americanism like "it turned out" would IMO look jarring in this context. If anyone can think of a better wording, feel free...
I can't think of a way to shorten "Metropolitan Police officer P.C.". Non-Commonwealth readers can't be expected to understand the abbreviation P.C., but British police officers are invariably referred to by their rank (P.C. Smith, Sgt Jones, Insp Brown etc).
There are five rows. Rows 2, 3 and 4 are occupied by tablets, making three rows of tablets; the first and fifth row are empty. The paragraph in question is illustrated with this image to make the layout clearer - unfinished things are always hard to describe, as they don't have neat starts and finishes. I've reworded the first sentence to "The tablets are arranged on the second, third and fourth of the five rows", if that makes things clearer; however, this section is a summary style brief-skim of List of tablets on the Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice, and I don't want to go into too much duplicated detail.
Using the old gravestones to fence in the park isn't quite as outlandish as it appears; British graveyards were designed to be reused, which is why there are so few really old gravestones in Britain. Remember, in this particular case we're talking about one of the highest population densities in the world (the entire City of London would fit within Central Park without touching the edges) with two thousand years of history, and an economy and culture based since Saxon and Viking times on asset-stripping other cultures and the ruins of the past. (Until relatively recently, the traditional West European way to source building materials was to dismantle the nearest Roman building.) – iridescent13:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The one image placement change that you reverted wasn't mine. I too question that clause in WP:ACCESS.
I've taken another look at the two instances of "in the event", and I think the phrase could just be excised without any major loss of meaning. Your call.
Re "Metropolitan Police officer [[Constable|P.C.]]": I considered "Metropolitan Police [[constable]] P.C." as the term constable is familiar enough, and it does away with the easter egg link—but "constable P.C." may be awkward in its own way.
I had looked at that tablets image repeatedly, yet altogether failed to see the top row. Will take another look at that section. Maralia (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All good in the tablets section now. I found a few niggles in ref formatting, and fixed them. Would still like to see the prose tweaked in the 'last great Victorian' sentence to avoid the misplaced modifier.
I can't imagine being given only 20 days to apply to move a grave, then seeing 20 years pass before they actually finished the damn park. Any hints (I presume nothing solid, or you would have put it in the article) as to why it took so long? Maralia (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dabomb87 has re-reverted the image-placement; I've asked him here to discuss it since (as previously mentioned) I think there's no reason at all to apply this particular arbitrary style guideline in this case, and compelling reasons not to.
I've replaced one "in the event" with "it transpired". The other usage of the term (about the decision to use ceramic tiling) I've kept in; I can't think of an obvious synonym for it that won't be very clumsy. Given the subject matter the vast majority of readers of this article will be British English speakers, who will understand "in the event" as meaning "the end result was different to that originally proposed".
I don't think "Metropolitan Police [[constable]] P.C." works, as people familiar with the term (as per above, most readers of this will be British English speakers) will read that as "Metropolitan Police constable Police Constable", which is even more jarring. The problem arises from Metropolitan Police being his employer and Police Constable being his title, and both needing to be mentioned. The fact of him being Metropolitan Police needs to be mentioned; it won't be immediately obvious to anyone not familiar with the area, but it's counter-intuitive that he worked for the M.P., as they don't cover the City of London; that a Met officer was on duty so close to the park is down to a quirk of the old boundaries of the City (Postman's Park is about halfway between the words "City" and "Islington" on the map, near where a spur of Islington used to jut down into the City.)
I don't know why they took so long to open the park. I'd assume lack of funds - the British economy was heavily dependent on transatlantic shipping and cotton trading, both of which collapsed in the 1860s due to the American Civil War, and the Great Deflation sent prices haywire in the 1870s - but that's pure OR on my part.
I've rejigged the "Styles of tiling" table to put the photo of the five rows first, and thus next to the explanatory text - hopefully that will make it clearer. – iridescent14:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would "Metropolitan Police officer P.C. (Police Constable) Alfred Smith" be unacceptable due to its length, complexity, or the expected readership of the article? It seems to solve the Easter Egg problem, and perhaps the juxtaposition of the initialism and the full title will make people not expand the former and thus result in a less "jarring" sentence. If I am wrong, on the other hand, it will be doubly so. :-P Waltham, The Duke of01:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, removed File:Wklson061.jpg as the source looks fairly dubious. Also removed the portrait of William De Morgan, which isn't essential to the article and was causing more heat than light regarding its positioning. – iridescent 214:22, 13 September 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.
Ok so it isn't quite the greatest rock album ever like DSotM, but its probably up there in the top ten and certainly ranks top of some people's lists. Its slightly shorter than I'd like but that's more down to a paucity of written material than anything else (DSotM has entire books written about it, WYWH does not). Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll give a more thorough review later, but here are a few right off the bat:
discogs.com is not reliable in the same way that IMDb is not reliable, as they're both user-generated. You've double sourced the release information you're citing anyway, so unless I'm mistaken removing the discogs citation doesn't change anything.
Reference 45 seems to be broken; check over this real quick, seems like a simple fix. It's evident from the ref name alone exactly what you were trying to cite.
Same issue as DSotM on the formatting of the "Sales chart performance" table.
Another minor issue, which also came up with DSotM; I'm not sure how exactly this is fixed, but it bothers me that the titles of web references are italicized and not in quotes as they should be. Can someone explain why this is?
Regarding the citations, they're formatted entirely correctly; this article uses the {{citation}} template. There's no "as they should be" about it – while the {{cite web}} template puts them in quotes instead of italics, there's no requirement to use one template over the other as long as the use within the article is consistent. – iridescent09:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph that begins "In 2007, one of Germany's largest public radio stations..." in the "Sales" subsection should be up in the "Reception" section with the other retrospective ratings and listings.
Names are used inconsistently; After the first mention of the full name in the main text, the person should be referred to by last name only. Also, you say Rick Wright and Richard Wright, which is potentially confusing.
I think that the first Gilmour quote would be better positioned in Template:Quote box. In general, blockquotes work best when they're followed by a sentence that ends in a colon, like the Edmunds quote. In this case though the Gilmour quote just sorta floats there.
This last one by no means bars the article from a support, as the info may not even exist as far as I know, but I'm curious if any band members other than Wright and Gilmour have said anything retrospectively about the album. Is there any Mason or Waters perspective here? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Waters has said that he felt that the long instrumental sections were unnecessary, that the lyrics should introduce the music, rather than the music introducing the lyrics. I'll have to check on what Mason thinks. I already have a fair bit from Waters in there though. I'm creating a completely new Pink Floyd article in my sandbox here and may expand upon this there, as I feel Waters' criticism is more to do with the direction he was taking as a lyricist, rather than criticism of the album per se. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support All my points have been sufficiently addressed and I now believe that the article is feature-worthy. I really have to commend the awesome job you're doing with the Pink Floyd articles, Parrot of Doom. Nice work! --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A direct outlet for Hipgnosis' work, I believe the short narration from Thorgerson is from an interview performed for the site, by the site. IIRC I discovered the link in an article on a Pink Floyd fansite. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[22] - basically a fansite. I've looked around it and cross-checked it with other sources (sadly Q Magazine doesn't host its lists itself), and it appears solid and reliable to me. Although it lacks spit and polish, I've found that such fansites are often quite meticulous. Of course some aren't, but this one appears fairly sound to me. Its only referencing a single factoid however so it wouldn't be a loss were it to be removed. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of my concerns is do they have permission to host the list? Presumably it's copyrighted, and if they don't have permission, we're linking to a copyright violation, which is a no-no. Ealdgyth - Talk12:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted this from the article, moved it to the talk page. Hopefully someone will have a copy of those magazines, and we can then reinsert at a later date. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is Redbeard's own site, hosting his own radio broadcasts. The interview with Richard Wright (used as a source on this article) is contained within. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, on (rather unusually) 1e. The article is currently indefinitely protected, with the protection log note "edit warring/content dispute". I see edit warring by multiple authors, but no discussion or resolution on the article talk page; rather it appears an admin simply locked some editors out of the dispute. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)04:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is related to the actions of that editor, who proceeded to spam unreliable review links across a range of Pink Floyd articles using first an IP, and then an account. The source he used contains 'reviews' from members of the public. When repeatedly asked to justify the reliability of the source he resorted to abuse, using his IP address to create edits like this. You can see similar issues on DSotM, and Meddle.
This is not an edit war - its vandalism, pure and simple, hence the article's protected status. You can check the history of those three articles and see that this user is alone in making these changes, and that several users and admins reverted them. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the protection now. It was intended as a short term measure to prevent disruption as described by PoD above. As Casliber says, consensus will prevail, but I'm pretty sure it was as described by PoD. Apologies for any inconvenience. – B.hotep •talk• 09:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think reference 41 is not needed; the facts are unlikely to be contested, and are indeed common knowledge to Floyd's fans. Q Magazine (refs 51 and 52) is a respected publication, and although the references do not link directly to the publisher's website, again I think that these facts are unlikely to be contested. IMHO, the image review remains the major obstacle—but I still rely on other reviewers for this. Graham ColmTalk19:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If pushed I can probably remove the Hypergallery reference without losing too much information. It'll have to wait until tomorrow though. As for the Q list, it isn't a major loss if it goes. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really, despite not a single member of the band recognising him? You don't think such a major change in physical appearance warrants the use of this image? How are readers to fully understand the transformation Barrett had undergone, without an image? Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO this image is important—the album is a tribute to Syd Barrett—it's use is not a "flagrant violation". The irony of Barrett's unexpected appearance at the recording, and his not being even recognised must be described and illustrated if this article is to be deemed comprehensive. Graham ColmTalk18:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Parrot: this is an article about the album, not about Mr. Barrett. @GrahamColm: I still can't see how this is essential to readers' understanding of the article, or how its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image is also used in Barrett's page here. Essential is a tricky word to define...I think the photo adds alot, surely, but the article is not unreadable without it (?) I can go either way on this one. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another Air Marshal, another interesting character... Let this one sit at GA/A-Class for a while but now added new material to round out and clarify what was there, particularly in early career, and hopefully remembered all the MOS updates since it passed those early milestones. For those who reviewed earlier, more anecdotes await such as what he did to miss out on commanding No. 10 Squadron on the eve of World War II, and how a certain section of the Great Barrier Reef came to be named after him... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"…in 1915, at the age of thirteen." I'm not sure about the comma, but you can take out "the" and "of".
The quote "reservedly pleased about the publicity" should have a reference immediately after it.
Take your point but that would result in two consecutive sentences with exactly the same citation, and given recent discussion on 'over-citing' at the FAC talk page there might also be objections to that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The result was that…" sounds a bit clunky; perhaps "As a result…" or something similar.
I think "General Kenney considered Hewitt's removal "bad news"." Should be switched with the sentence preceding it, with the rest of the sentences presenting reaction to Hewitt's removal.
I tried the switch but the "As a result..." statement didn't seem to flow that way. Also it's really only Kenney among his contemporaries who had an opinion after the fact - the preceding stuff is more the machinations of the transfer itself, along with modern historians' perspective. Happy to discuss further though, in case I've missed the point. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not among my sources, unfortunately. The dedicated entries on him in High Fliers and the Oxford Companion don't go into that level of detail, and he's one of the many odd omissions from the Australian Dictionary of Biography, which invariably does include that sort of thing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Interesting article, I spent some time checking details against his service record(241 pages one of the longest I've read) available from National Archives of Australia, you'll need to search under his full name[24] NAA searches arent linkable
Thanks Gnan, sorry for not replying earlier but there was a lot to go through there, as you know. Funnily enough, I checked for digital personnel records on Hewitt in NAA not that long ago with the express purpose of double-checking dates and seeing if there was anything vital I didn’t already have, and this one never came up, only his separate 5-page RAN record. Apart from that, I'll preface my response by saying that I prefer not to use NAA records unless absolutely necessary, practically because the links are often flaky, and idealistically because I think an encyclopedia ought not rely on primary sources – though admittedly many MilHist bios do use these things (I have myself on occasion) and of course the London Gazette is ubiquitous for citing decorations. On the other hand, I’d always check to ensure that my secondary and tertiary sources aren’t actually contradicted by the file, which is exactly what you’ve done here, so pls see below... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
question 4 May 1925, holding a temporary commission as a Flying Officer; maybe a RAF rank can you clarify, service record pg89 states promotions to;
Flight Officer 30.Jan.1923, (honary Flt Lieutenant while on loan from RAN to RAAF 1923 service record pg 233)
Flt lieutenant 3.apr.1928,(also the date he transferred to the RAAF)
Squarden leader 17.Feb.1931,
Wing Commander 1.Jan.1938,
Group Captain(temporary) 1.12.1939....
I’m not sure that the temporary commission he held in the RAF contradicts anything in his RAAF personnel file and, after all, both the file and the Gazette are primary sources so it could be argued they’re just as accurate as one another. What all this is saying is that he simultaneously held three ranks in three services at once: Lieutenant in the RAN, Flight Lieutenant (temporary) in the RAAF, and Flying Officer (temporary) in the RAF. Frankly I have no problem losing the RAF commission bit if you think it confuses things, as I don’t find it that interesting, but short of that I don’t know that anything would need changing in this article because of it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
he was controversially removed from his post in mid-November 1943 service record pg90 states AOC 9OG 15.feb.42 to 17.Dec.43
Three sources (Oxford Companion, Stephens in The Royal Australian Air Force and Odgers in the Official History) all say that he was sacked in November. I think it’s reasonable for both dates to be correct, as he would’ve had to remain at his post for a short while before being replaced. Harry Cobby was sacked from command of First Tactical Air Force in April 1945, but didn’t leave until his replacement, Frederick Scherger, arrived in May. To clarify in the article, I can leave the bit about his sacking in mid-November as is, and just add that Lukis took over in December (which we can cite using Lukis’ Australian Dictionary of Biography entry). How does that sound? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that does sound good because I'd expect someone really interested in Hewitt would ask the same question of why the descrepency of 1 month. Gnangarra08:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because the previous FAC failed from lack of reviews. It has had two people perform thorough checks through afterward. The sources are all clean and I can provide any information needed. The page represents every major piece of criticism on the matter and performs an analysis on a very interesting experience that changed Christopher Smart from major poet into someone who forever lost his place along side of those like Alexander Pope and Samuel Johnson. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Interesting article, I shall be reading it in greater depth shortly. For now a couple of things:
Is there a reason "mental asylum(s)" isn't linked?
"confined in a private madhouse" isn't madhouse colloquial? Would a private psychiatric hospital not be better?
"Smart was diagnosed as "incurable" wouldn't "Smart's condition" be preferable, especially on account of it being mentioned just before?
"Mr Potter's asylum" this asylum isn't mentioned before, could detail be added that it was also in Bethnal Green?
"All that is known of his years of confinement is that he wrote poetry." would that be in the first asylum, the second or both. Or do you think it's implied?
The section on "Release" seems to be ordered slightly oddly for me. It starts with his release, saying that he "left the asylum", but doesn't linger on it. This made me think, as it continues with the meetings with a parliamentary commitee on the subject of his release, that he hadn't been officially released by this point. Maybe it's just me, but even so, could you clarify it a bit for me? ;)
1. A link would do very little for an individual as the word is best found in a dictionary if someone needs to know it. However, if you want to link it feel free. 2. "private madhouse" is from the sources. It was not a "private psychiatric hospital" nor did they have "psychiatric hospitals" 200 years ago. It was not even a hospital. It was literally an individual's home that took care of people who were considered "mad". 3. -Smart- was literally diagnosed as incurrable, not his condition. That is how it was perceived back then. The person was ill, not the person had an illness. 4. I haven't heard any information that Mr Potter's house was in Bethnal Green or that any later biographers knew anything about it except that it was a house owned by one "Mr Potter", and was later referred as "Mr Potter's house". The only time it is mentioned as being at Bethnal Green was by Smart's daughter who was too young at the time to really be a reliable source. She gets many details of the events wrong. If you have any further information missing from the article that could establish where the house was, I would like to see (and would make updates). 5. To be honest, we don't know at what time Smart wrote his poetry while in asylum or how much he wrote while in asylum. Instead, we have two poems that are definitely written sometime during those 7 years and many poems and translations that were possibly written during that time. Jubilate Agno has been suggested to start at various times. It is possible that a lot of his poetry is also missing, which makes it further harder to establish when what was written and where. We don't even know where he was first held. There is also speculation that he was in asylum before his official admittance into St Luke's, which causes further problems. 6. The section on the release starts off with his daughter's claim of the events of the release and then goes into what scholars claim are the events of the release. I reorganized the section a little to make it more clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the swift explanatons.
2. A note of this should be included in the Background then, or as a separate note. At the moment it's flown over as if everyone is familiar with the term private madhouse. The case for this is made more important by the lack of any article or mention of it on Wikipedia.
3. Again, some kind of note would be good, after "An institution like St Luke's, run by Battie, held both "curable" and "incurable" patients." would be most appropriate.
4. No I was merely going on the information given by the young daughter.
5. Okay, fair enough.
6. Much improved.
More comments:
The first image; could it give the approximate production of the painting (circa. 1745), and some kind of context (i.e. produced before his confinement)
"his mysterious "fit"" I can only assume refers to "disturbed mental state", although how this translates to fit I'm unsure.
"Smart's own testimony that he "blessed God in St. James's Park till I routed all the company" (Jubilate Agno B 90–91) as representing his religious madness is equally dismissed as resulting from drinking, as he was known for pulling pranks and the Board of the Green Cloth, the government body that controlled St James's Park, would treat most disturbances in the park as resulting from madness." is an awkwardly complex sentence. My suggestion is "Smart's own testimony, that he "blessed God in St. James's Park till I routed all the company" (Jubilate Agno B 90–91), representing his religious madness is equally dismissed as a result of drink; he was known for pulling pranks and the Board of the Green Cloth, the government body that controlled St James's Park, would treat most disturbances in the park as resulting from madness." MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know how to explain private madhouse, as there is no real definition beyond a place where they kept people that were accused of being mad. Each one was very different, as there were no regulations and, as partly discussed in the page, they were just starting to reform the whole "madness" system. It could have ranged just from a normal house operating as a home to a place being used like a prison. We lack details on all of the places besides St Luke's, and even then some. I'll see what I can do to try and make it easier for this point and the point about "incurrable". Ottava Rima (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (striking out interchange with main editor and will start new comments later - hamiltonstone (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC))
This is impressive scholarship, but has some issues. I may have to pop in and out erratically.[reply]
Background: The views of Szsz and Foucault are respectable, and reliable sources. However, there is an issue of clarity in the context of this article; and an issue of undue weight. Taking the first, less significant matter first: the para beings "Modern critics, however, have a more cynical view;..." This needs to be clarified - i believe this should read "Modern critics, however, have a more cynical view of the nature of mental illness and of societal responses to it;" This is improtant in recognising that these authors are addressing mental illness / madness in general, not specifically Smart's condition, nor British 18th century regulatory reforms. The second issue is that, while the work of Szasz and Foucault (and others) in recognising the social construction of madness is very important scholarship, I do not think it reflects the prevailing contemporary view (and certainly not the prevailing contemporary medical view) of madness. I confess that, while I have proposed a revision to adderss my first point, I am not sure I have a proposal to address the second, except to say that other contemporary views about the nature and treatment of conditions such as experienced by Smart would appear to be desirable.
Asylum: "...many of his friends, including writer and critic Samuel Johnson, began to write in the Universal Visiter to fulfil Smart's contractual obligation" What contractual obligation? This lacks context.
"His praying began in regular intervals but slowly devolved into irregular praying..." Devolved?? Appropriate words might be "developed", "degenerated" or "altered".
The lead makes references to the commencement of Smart's confinement in May 1757, but the section "Asylum" actually does not. It begins with some further background, and then in a fairly vague manner brings us to the point "Hunter reports that Samuel Johnson visited Smart during the latter's confinement", which appears to be the first explicit statement that he is in an asylum (or similar). This needs to be made clearer (as it is in the lead).
"There are other possibilities" By this point i am confused: other possibilities in respect of what? What is the subject here? And indeed, because I was confused, I became less confident that i had grasped the subject of the preceding para. I think there needs to be some editing to mae the subject of sections and paras more clearly defined and signalled. This might include ditching some of the text (esp. Johnson's quip) about The Universal Visiter, as i can't see its relevance. Why not simply begin along the lines:
"Smart, though confined to asylums, at no time ever believe himself to be insane. His friend Johnson did not share Smart's opinion. Johnson had begun meeting with Smart before his confinement, assisting Smart in meeting contractual obligations to contribute to The Universal Visiter (or however editors wish to express this). Johnson wrote "for poor Smart, while he was mad, not then knowing the terms on which he was engaged to write ... I hoped his wits would return to him", thus demonstrating Johnson's own interpretation of Smart's circumstances as being "madness". Another theory suggests Smart's actions were a result of alcohol, and had nothing to do with a mental imbalance.[ref] This may also have been related to the actions of Smart's father-in-law and publisher, Newbery. Newbery may have used the imprisonment of his son-in-law as leverage to control the publication of Smart's work and as a warning to others who worked for him not to cross him. Smart may have been imprisoned for embarrassing his father-in-law in some way, which could have resulted from an incident in which Smart would drink.[ref] Hester Thrale reinforced this latter possibility when she claimed that Smart's "religious fervor" tended to coincide with times that Smart was intoxicated.[ref]..."
As per your first objection, those two are used by sources who have written on Christopher Smart's asylum confinement. There are no other experts or individuals on the matter used by Christopher Smart's sources. Therefore, anything but mentioning of them would be a severe breach of original research. I follow Keymer's analysis to a T, including his description of scope and the rest. To make the changes that you propose would violate not only multiple policies by basis philosophy that is done at Wikipedia. As per that, your first objection can only be considered unactionable.
Your second - "What contractual obligation?" His contractual obligations to write in the Universal Visiter. This is implied in the statement that they were writing to meet his obligation. Any more detail would take paragraphs to explain and would be severely off topic. Your third objection seems to have no real merit - devolved is a synonymy of degenerate, a word you chose. To say that one is acceptable and another not would be inappropriate. Your fourth point - "By this point i am confused" The grammar has a colon. That means that the other possibilities will be explained. Your own sentence above complaining about this sentence uses a colon and operates in the same manner. The topic was clearly the same topic as the previous sentence - asylum, which is the section header. The rest of the phrase after the colon even makes this clear. I fixed the tensing. However, your other statements are inactionable and would require the violation of multiple policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, taking some of Ottava's points in order. You have clarified for me that Szasz and Foucault explicitly discussed Smart. Therefore, I suggest the section begin "Modern critics, however, have a more cynical view of Smart's confinement;" I think this clarification is desirable because an alternative interpretation (which I indeed mistakenly took) is possible; and the cited Szasz source is his general work on Madness (ie. as a reader, checking the title of the cited source did not encourage me to think that Szasz really had been writting specifically about Smart). This is a minor clarification that i think will help readability. You then remark that you "follow Keymer to a T", yet footnotes 6,7 and 8 are not to Keymer. If you are citing Szasz and Foucault from reading them / seeing them cited in Keymer, the footnote should reflect that. If not, then I'm not sure what you meant by "follow Keymer to a T", but I'm assuming there's no issue, so that's OK. Then we come to the "contractual obligation" point. Once i had read more of the article, it became clear what that contractual obligation was about; my point is that the reader needs the information at this particular point. Since this is the first time it is mentioned, it does need explanation. I cannot agree that it "would take paragraphs to explain and would be severely off topic". It would take approximately one sentence and would avoid mystifying the reader. Next: "devolved" is not a synonym of "degenerate" in this context. The common meaning of "devolve" is "to transfer or delegate"; you I think are seeking a word that implies a change in Smart's 'condition', specifically some form of deterioration. On your next point, i see what you are saying, and i think I was thrown by the practice, which I would avoid, of beginning a paragraph with a sentence that stylistically reads as a continuation of an existing para. "There are other possibilities:" does not stand in its own right as setting out the subject - the "other" is referring back to an earlier point. But the additional difficulty is that the previous para does not make explicit that we have entered a discussion of theories about why Smart was confined.
Ottava, your response to my suggestions felt somewhat terse. I am sorry if i am not adequately articulating my concerns; I'm doing my best to assist with what I have found to be a difficult text to read. I do not doubt the quality of the scholarship, which is outstanding, but I still have concerns about clarity and readability. I hope to come back and assist further in time. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My responses always come of terse, but mostly because I write hastily as I am busy with too much to really think about what I say. 1). Anyway, I see that I wasn't clear - Szasz and Foucault do not specifically address Smart's condition in those works. However, critics (i.e. biographers) in Christopher Smart criticism -use- those two works and apply the theories to Christopher Smart's case. In order to avoid original researcher, I followed Thomas Keymer's argument step by step (he was the model for the page). I introduced some of the perspective on the two and on Battie from other biographies. If you want, I can provide copies of the pages from Mounsey and Keymer and you can see that the quotes from Battie, Szasz, and Foucault are directly quoted in those works. The line from Keymer bridges the two in the article: "This description agrees with Smart's 1760s writings on the subject in which, according to Thomas Keymer ..." I do not have to cite Keymer when I am quoting from another source even if it is quoted in Keymer. That would be silly and would keep a reader from finding the original quote and verifying the original quote in context. I merely use Keymer's and Mounsey's text as a guide for what to include. 2) "The common meaning of "devolve" is "to transfer or delegate";" Definition 2 of dictionary.com "To degenerate or deteriorate gradually:". I would hope that the dictionary could be seen as reliable, as it uses both degenerate and deteriorate in the definition. 3) I have expanded the sentence to read "There are other possibilities beyond madness or religious fervor that led to Smart's confinement". I hope that clarifies. 4) I mentioned expanded the contractual obligations to "to fulfill Smart's contractual obligation to produce content for the magazine". However, he was obligated to produce content for the magazine and not allowed to produce content for any other magazine for a term of 99 years. He was contracted with another individual and the story behind it is very complicated (as are the terms of the contract). The contract was seemingly broken when the magazine ended after a dozen issues. It is a highly complex issue and I worry about any further detail on the matter as it would snowball. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, and thanks for your note at my talk page. Couple of points. From WP:CITE: "It is improper to obtain a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source." Unless you yourself read Szasz in original, do it as "Szasz (1972) p. xxx cited in Keymer (2003) p. xx." Re the dictionary definition: I am most surprised by dictionary.com, and am sticking to my guns on this one. The Macquarie Dictionary (a large Australian dictionary ) does not have this as any possible meaning of "devolve"; ditto the Concise Oxford. Devolution is used to have a meaning similar to "degeneration" only in biological contexts (ie. in contrast to evolution). I have never seen "devolved" used in the manner used in the text here - surely it is preferable to use a word that will be immediately understood? Your little expansion re the contractual obligation thing is exactly the sort of clarification I was looking for, and is fine. Hopefully i will get back to this article another time. regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, I can get my camera out and take pictures of both Foucault and Szasz. I also have Scull's The Most Solitary of Afflictions, which is another great work that I could have added. They are necessary for my own work (I wont get into that, as it is off topic). I am confused by Macquarie - devolve should be in all dictionaries since it is from the latin (volver - circle or rotate, and de means to cycle back). De is the opposite action as e (i.e. "evolution" and "devolution", sometimes also called "de-evolution"). Regardless, I will just change it to degenerate, even though degenerate has a stronger negative connotation than necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Not sure if we are at cross-purposes on some things here. You say "I can take pictures..." - i assuume that means you have Foucault and Szasz there: in which case, everything is fine - i just thought your earlier comment here was saying you had sighted then in another source. On devolve, again we might be at cross purposes. The word is in the dict, but not the definition you found at dictionary.com. And if you want something less strong than "degenerate", you could try "deteriorated" or even just something like "changed". hamiltonstone (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It must be an Americanism. "Changed" would not have the connotation of falling apart. "Devolve" is just used from my experience (obviously, American) as a polite way of saying degeneration. It doesn't matter, as some people would consider rambling around in the street, harassing people, and asking them to do stuff a "degeneration". "Deteriorated" would imply a more physical/health condition than a mental/social condition. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Wow, reading the above comments demonstrated how much thought some people put into articles. I really don't think that I could buckle down and go into that level of depth on an article that I was not involved or highly interested in.
My concern is a bit more practical. I noticed that in the text, the abbreviation Mr. was written as "Mr" with no period. Now I am no english major, but this seems to be, well, wrong. The same issue occours with the abbreviation "St" which I have never seen without the dot in a professonal context.
Secondly, I took minor issue with the wording of the header "Reaction" as it seems slightly misleading. Most of the text below could be better described as "Analysis." Reaction tends to imply a period of time closer to the event. This is especially true for the 20th century and contemporary section.
I agree with you about punctuation after "Mr" and "St". However, the subject deals with a British individual so follows British punctuations. It is an annoyance. I changed the heading to "Analysis" because it seems like a good neutral way of describing the section. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I read and copyedited this a while ago - the degree of material for context is tricky, but I feel the article has the right amount of background material to provide context without it being superfluous. Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport
I have undertaken some copyediting and attempted some clarifications of obscure or ambiguous phrases.
The background is good, but it lacks a key first sentence I think—something like: "Christopher Smart was an English poet who was confined to asylums during a time of debate about the nature of madness and its treatment."
"Modern critics, however, have a more cynical view:..." Can we add a few words about precisely what it is about which modern critics have a more cynical view, as well as making clear they are referring to cases such as Smart's when being discussed? I am thinking: "Modern critics, however, have a more cynical view of why society confined people such as Smart in asylums:..."
"...during the previous century that he was placed in St Luke's." I think what is meant here is "...during the century prior to Smart being placed in St Luke's." If so, it should be amended.
""Commission of Lunacy" was taken out against Smart..." The nature of a commission for lunacy needs a brief explanation - a few words as a subordinate clause in this sentence.
"was confined by Newbery". This sounds as though Newbery was administering St Luke's Hospital and needs revision. Is the point here that Newbery made the application for Smart to be confined? If so "It is possible Nwebery sought Smart's confinement..." would be a better wording.
1. Done. At first, I was hesitant, then I realized that the source actually says the above, so, I made the change without a problem. 2. Wrote "have a more cynical view of the 18th-century use of the term "madness" when diagnosing patients". 3. Done. 4. I couldn't find anything that would help, so I just removed the phrase. 5. "Newbery was administering" - I changed it to "at Newbery's behest". Ottava Rima (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My above concerns all addressed, thanks. Next:
The Analysis section. This should begin with as sentence that foreshadows in plain english what Johnson and Piozzi's opinions are. The quotes are long and in (of course) antiquated English, so their point is not immediately ascertained by a contemporary reader.
"Most journalists knew of..." Yet the next sentence says "In particular, poet William Mason..." This implies a poet is an example of a journalist, something I would suggest any poet would resile from.
In addition, this short para needs a new first sentence. It would read somethig like "While friends like Johnson did not believe Smart to be insane, others argued to the contrary."
"Although it took a century before a positive twist was put on Christopher Smart's time in asylum, Robert Browning later remarked in his Parleyings (1887)..." Having read this twice, I think what is meant here is that Browning was the person who put the positive spin on Smart's time in asylum. If that is correct, then recommend revise this to: "It was a century before a positive twist was put on Christopher Smart's time in asylum. Fittingly, it was another poet, Robert Browning, who remarked that A Song to David was great because Smart was mad at the time of its composition.[1] In his poem Parleyings (1887), Browning writes:"
It would be good if another editor could have a careful look at the use of tense in the "20th century and contemporary" section. I have amended a couple of instances where the manner in which tense was expressed had caused a sentence to be ungrammatical; however, there does seem to be some switching between present and past tense in introducing the various analyses.
One structural question. I wonder whether the paragraph in the Background section that begins "Modern critics however..." might better be part of the 20th century analysis section. Any other views on this?
I made the tensing corrections, added some information before Johnson, Piozzi, and the next paragraph, and some other fixes. In terms of structure, the background section merely deals with the overall approach to "madness". It is necessary to understand what "madness" is and how the "mad" were treated. The later responses by critics is the disputed explanations for why he was specifically deemed "mad". These range from the idea that he was indeed crazy to conspiracy to religious persecution. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I ever finish work on Christopher Smart, there would be four more pages (Mrs Midnight, her oratory, some other publications) that would be added as links. There is no page on John Sherratt, Christopher Hunter, or Elizabeth LeNoir unfortunately. There are also many major critics that lack pages. Not much that can be done. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I remember many instances at FAC of "there are too many redlinks". For some reason, I'm willing to think that you even made such a statement before. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope; whenever I see them, I post the disclaimer. An article has to be comprehensive. Our concern here is that, if the link is red, the article may have to provide context (as needed), or the link can be filled in. As long as this article is OK, that article can be redlinked. I am aware of one reviewer who frequently complained about the quality of linked articles (even removing links to articles she considered incomplete, which is not good practice-- articles are less likely to be improved if they are delinked!), and neither is that part of WIAFA. As long as this article is comprehensive and terms are explained, redlinks or inferior quality links are not an issue, and redlinks to articles meeting notability are encouraged and should be included (see my recent changes to FAC Icos, which no reviewer picked up). That article is perfectly understandable with two redlinks in the lead, and since those articles meet notability, those links *should* be included, and the nominator is under no obligation to stubbify those links, since context is provided at Icos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it may have been a while ago. I could look if you want. :P Regardless, as I pointed out - there are no more bluelinks that can be added, and there is no ability to justify a redlink, as there is no way to claim that these individuals are notable with the current sources now (and right now, I have all of the sources on Christopher Smart published after 1965 and many sources before, as per my commission to write a biography on him). There are two links that would be splits from the main Christopher Smart article -if- I manage to finish it and get it to size enough to justify to content splits. However, those would be two links that have very little connection. Anyway, it is a poor substitute for bluelinks to suddenly fill a page with redlinks. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you're right in saying FAC doesn't approve of redlinks "in general". Obviously seas of red print are undesirable, but since you have added "unfortunately" to the list of three pageless names above, one would think that these were likely candidates for future articles and could be redlinked. Not a major issue, but something to be borne in mind. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said those names were necessarily notable or deserve pages. However, they are the only candidates for bluelinks. It would take a lot of research, for instance, to justify Christopher Smart's daughter who, as of right now, seems to appear only in a very fringe way in only 4 or 5 sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I've removed two cases of what I consider to be weasel words and also removed "harsh" from "harsh reviews"; it seemed too subjective for the article, the reader can decide for themselves whether it is harsh or not. I'm still concerned about the Background for the article; it doesn't cover either madhouses or the fact that the patient, rather than the illness, was curable or incurable. I think those two points are crucial to understanding and fully benefiting from the article, and therefore they should be included in the Background surely? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They were "harsh reviews". That is not a "weasel word". Harsh is a description say that they destroyed him in a review. They -destroyed- him in a review. Please don't make such changes unless you find a source that dares to claim the reviews were not harsh, as there are none. From the source "The Critical was brief and harsh" (p. 248). Please don't make such changes again. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, all of the comments and approaches about "curable" and "incurable" are based on what the sources say. To characterize it in any other way is original research. Furthermore, what do you want to know on "madhouses", especially since there has been a full paragraph about them: "18th century treatment of inpatients was simple:". I wont be going into original research, which it seems by your concerns that you want such. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "harsh" was a weasel word, please read the revision history again. I removed it because the statement seemed to me to be written by someone who was obviously sympathetic to Christopher Smart's confinement, which is against what (I feel) an encyclopedia is about. If it transcludes what the sources say then I think it needs to be made obvious. Also, I find your tone incredibly antagonistic. I would prefer if you didn't, in future, litter my talk page with the pretence of being someone wih any kind of impact on how I edit on Wikipedia. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "in order to" is not a weasel word nor even close. You have shown a misunderstanding of two things so far. My tone is antagonistic because you have damaged a page while promoting something that is patently absurd. I'll be sure to just take you to AN or ANI since you don't want me to "litter your talk page". Ottava Rima (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Moni3 willsupport if resolved
and it is possible that the self-evaluation found in his poetry represents an evangelical Christianity. Would it be better to say that the poetry represented an expression of evangelical Christianity? The way it is currently worded makes it seem as if there is a type of Christianity called Evangelical, which would introduce the fine points between Pentecostal and other types of Protestant forms of evangelicalism.
I certainly get the impression that it did not take much to get someone committed if Smart's father-in-law was able to do so. Standards for commitment have changed through the years. I recall that it took very little to get a woman committed in the US at the turn of the 20th century: just a male relative attesting that she was mad. This case, however, is more curious and I am curious to know what it took to get a fully grown intelligent man committed to an insane asylum. The only other case coming to mind is the Marquis de Sade who was committed because his nobility kept him from prison (my understanding of it, at least).
Who characterized Smart's fit?
I don't understand the "issued" of Smart's Hymn to the Supreme Being. Does that mean he published it or had it printed?
Can you give a sentence or two about Smart's accomplishments, how he earned his living and what he had previously published before his confinement? Should this appear on the main page, readers will have little concept of who Smart was beyond this article.
Otherwise, I found it a challenging and engaging article. Interesting. It is possible I may have missed the above requests...I get constantly interrupted sometimes and find it difficult to keep track of what I read. --Moni3 (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. I think I originally said "type of" but then that got changed at some point. I made the change. Also, I later say "self-examination represents an evangelical type of Christianity". I conformed the language to the change in the lead. 2. "This case, however, is more curious" Indeed it is, but there is little information on the matter. Chris Mounsey (the most recent biographer) takes up the idea that Newbery was doing this all as part of a power dispute, but doesn't say -how- he was able to do it. No one has really effectively explained how it happened, but this is probably because no one knows when it actually happened (as there are few dates and solid bits of information). It is unfortunate. 3. I'm not sure which line you are referring to. Was it the line: 'some kind, possibly a "disturbed mental state"'. 4. "issued" means published, printed, and sold. I could change it to any of the three if you would prefer one over the other. 5. I added a paragraph. I don't know if that provides you enough information of Smart pre-confinement. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
which came after a mysterious "fit" was resolved That fit. Asylum section, second paragraph, second sentence.
Issued is either quite dated or does not really express what might have been a rift between the two. Printed and sold certainly gets that point across.
Good with the new paragraph. That adds some context.
For all the talk about nominators having to be polite, welcome to the most imperfect process in the history of mankind. This clearly meets the criteria so support. That is all. Also, don't oppose and leave it hanging forever even though your improvements have been made. I'm sick and tired of that happening. Rafablu8817:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<conversation unrelated to article moved to talk page>
Comments: You're lucky I'm not put off by your rudeness and disregard for an important process. My issues:
I'm definitely not disregarding an important process. The fact that I work tirelessly to get stuff here should tell you all you need to know. Just generally not happy with filibustering and negligence. You obviously are neither especially as you took the time to comment even though you had similar issues as the users above. For that, thanks. Rafablu8821:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It's just I would consider the "nomination rationale" you left slightly… flame-bait-ish? I would have gone about nominating in a different way than yourself, even if I had the same reservations, tis all.
"Despite missing their hometown of London" seems slightly inappropriate. Hometown, to me, refers to somewhere that the reader is likely to not have heard of, usually because of its size.
I don't fully understand the issue here. It's merely pointing out that London is Bloc Party's hometown and the info is integral to what is explained later about the album. Rafablu8821:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is simply that hometown seems an odd little word for such a well-known and large place as London. I can't think of an alternative, and it's not a big deal anyway. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
"Hometown" is strictly US English, when the article should clearly be in UK English - "native city" is what you need. This is a problem in various places. I suggest you don't strike through comments when you think you have dealt with them. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, it's always the commentator who strikes his own comments. Secondly, I see your point, but what if there's no BrEng equivalent? I don't believe "native city" is an option as it would inadvertently imply that they were all born there, which is not the case. I've used "home city". RB88 (T) 06:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Multi-instrumentalist Gordon Moakes" would something more specific such as "Band member" or "Backing singer" be more appropriate? "Multi-instrumentalist" makes it feel as if he's giving outside commentary (until the quote is read).
"high-profile producers like Jacknife Lee" low-profile enough to not have a wikilink?
"delivery of their staccato indie rock" would assume "indie rock" or a derivative thereof needs to be wikilinked, considering other music types (dance music) are.
The above two points: Both are linked in the lead (which I usually treat as the rest of the article) and I don't link things again unless it's songs in the track list, charts, or equipment (all done for user ease). Rafablu8821:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I've never understood why wikilinking terms repeated in the lead and main text isn't enforced. Are we all under the illusion that people are going to read the entire article? They're almost certainly not; many people will probably just use the TOC to navigate to a section of their interest/need. Hence why I'd consider wikilinking those terms. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
Linked them but I still think it's unnecessary because I'm sure everyone reads the lead before the rest and so has seen the links regardless of the section they click. Also going under that assumption would mean linking every term the was new in every section regardless if it's been linked before just because A. Billy ADHD can't be bothered to try being fully enlightened. Rafablu8811:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The title comes as a tangent to the central theme of the album, "the living noise of a metropolis"." is it usual for the title of an album not to be discussed until the Promotion and Release? I thought this would have gone in Origins.
The record name was only picked after the final mix at the end of 2006 was done. Even so, I tend to put the cover art and name info immediately after the release date to totally inform it. Rafablu8821:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"First single". This occurs a number of times (one of which I fixed). I honestly can't see why they aren't prefixed with "The". Surely if you have "The next single" then you ought to have "The [number] single"?
This article refers to Bloc Party as an Indie rock band, whilst the article on the band itself gives them as simply a rock band.
WP:OTHERSTUFF, but anyway that article's infobox clearly gives their genres and I'm sure you can allow a band to change their musical style drastically in a given album.
As far as I can tell the place that link took me to had no relevance to my issue. The infobox gives the genres of the album, not of the band. It's not a case of me allowing a band to change musical style, a lot of bands and musicians do that. My point is: we can't change the band's genre to whatever album we're detailing. And you shouldn't change the genre of the band on their article without reaching a consensus either… (I noticed) MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point was that we cannot use other articles or previous FACs to prove right or wrong here. For all you and me know, that article had been vandalised repeatedly (and it had by an IP, that's why I changed it back). If it said "Bloc Party are a neo-psychedelic band" on that article, would you expect me to write that on this one, too, even though it's totally bogus?? But more to the point here's Allmusic: INDIE ROCK!Rafablu8820:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page you linked to lists their genre as Rock/Pop… Can I just say you've shot yourself in the foot? But whatever, I'm not going to raise the roof about the issue if you feel defensive. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, when we use allmusic we tend to use the specific genre because most bands/albums on wiki would be "rock/pop" if we followed the major grouping instead and that would sound off and not wholly accurate. Rafablu8821:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but that's just a laughable way of asserting something. For example, "Sarah Palin hot" returns more results than "Sarah Palin politician"… Anyway, enough said on the issue.
That's the way we always proceed, especially in articles up for deletion. Also I don't see the similarity between your example and mine. I doubt anyone would want to say "Sarah Palin is a hottie" instead of a "Sarah Palin is a politician". The terms have no relation with each other in the same way as "rock/pop" and "indie rock". Rafablu8813:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On another note, I believe all your points have been tackled. Would you care to strike them so that the FAC overlords can see everything is in order. Rafablu8820:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Studio Sessions" image. Can "(L-R)" be expanded, I haven't ever seen an article where it's been abbreviated. Also "Tong's drum kit is surrounded by a booth and each component has its own miking set-up" resembles the Alt text, and isn't what I'd consider an appropriate caption.
I reworded it slightly. I don't know what the problem is if both alt and real are the same especially when real has to explain what is seen in the photo (booth and miking setup which are written in the text too) in the same vein as alt. Rafablu8811:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Okereke's lyrics juxtapose the apparent meaningless monotony with the seemingly epic experiences in a city environment, from waiting for a train, struggles with racial identity, terrorist attacks, and desperation on a dancefloor." it sounds so pretentious. Do there need to be 13 words to describe how someone is showing that there can be great and meaningless experiences in a city? The second section should be "from waiting for a train, struggling with racial identity and terrorist attacks, to desperation on a dancefloor". On that note, what is "desperation on a dancefloor about?".MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded it further, your revision as far as I could tell just changed the "from" to "to". Hopefully my revision is considered an improvement. I'll explain why I've changed it in the way I have if it's not clear. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, it's the magazine website for Remix. I should hope it's reliable as 1/3 of the article is based on its February 2007 issue. Here's some covers: [27], [28], [29]. It might have ceased print publication though recently according to that last link. Rafablu8811:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice, verifiable, complete website about the UK charts but I don't know how to fulfil the signposting criteria on this one. Should I get an expert in or just use acharts.us? Rafablu8811:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is considerable specialist language in the article, and while most of these terms are linked, some are not. What, for example, is "sonic inference"? What are "vox sessions"? Also, a sentence should be broadly comprehensible without the reader having to use links repeatedly. Sentences such as "The miking scheme was crucial to prepare the drum tracks for the looping and processing Lee planned for them using production program Logic; different types of mics were used for each component of the drum kit" need to be reworded in a more reader-friendly manner.
It was meant to be "interference" and changed it to "voice". I'm sure the kids are down with that lingo. I'll scout for any more, although I did that during peer review when I added more detail e.g. about distressors which don't have a wiki page. For the sentence point, see the reply to your first query. Rafablu8817:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All tech points are either linked or explained in enough detail short of actually copying from their respective pages. Not much more I can do. The sentence has been fixed and the flow is better. Rafablu8817:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Specific prose issues: these are examples taken from the first two or three sections. The whole text needs careful checking to identify and fix other problems:-
"sextet" is a singular term, therefore "a sextet was hired"
British English, a singular entity can use the plural if it contains more than one member, i.e. "the band were", "Everton FC are an English football club" etc. It's come up before over and over and over again. Rafablu8816:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There will sometimes be a timelag between my noting a point and posting it, because I have to multi-task. If in that gap you spot and correct your mistakes, well and good. But don't try and pretend (by ???) that the mistake didn't exist. Brianboulton (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
**"A low-quality rip of A Weekend in the City leaked in November..." It presumably didn't leak itself, so "was leaked". Who leaked it?
Your text reads "A high-quality version was leaked in January 2007, whose contents were confirmed by Okereke." Contents are not a "who". And it's still not clear, for either of these leaks, who did the leaking. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased it. And if I'd known who leaked it I would have written it. The source mentions noone as is the case with internet leaks. I don't think "leaked by deranged internet pirates" would be encyclopaedic or verifiable. Rafablu8800:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that sometimes people leak things themselves, as a form of test-marketing.
**"released in the rest of the world" seems an odd way of describing the general release of a album. "Released worldwide" might be a more orthodox expression.
I have spot-checked a few citations: "Bloc Party wanted to expand their sonic palette without losing the cathartic delivery of their staccato indie rock.[15]" What part of ref [15] are you saying supports this statement?
It's number 16 and it says: "We've retained some of that jerkiness [from Silent Alarm] but we didn't want to do anything that we've already done. There's a lot of gentle stuff, but we don't want to have a gentle record. Moakes says some of the cuts the group have come up with sound not far from the edgy, dream-rock..." Rafablu8816:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was [15] when I went through - you have added a further reference meantime. However, that's beside the point. The sentence is clearly an imaginative interpretation of the source, and should be rephrased to reflect what was actually said. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
POV warning: "The highly honest approach..." Whose words are "highly honest"? If they are from the source, they should be in quotes and attributed. If they are POV they should be withdrawn.
The polar citations used to prove the statement are:
Allmusic: "A Weekend in the City, an unashamedly ambitious, emotional album", "On A Weekend in the City, Bloc Party is sadder, wiser, and more heart-on-sleeve than ever -- almost embarrassingly so", "He's become a striking lyricist, conveying ambivalence and yearning in remarkably direct terms"
The Guardian: "Unfortunately, grand statements are not earnest frontman Kele Okereke's forte", "There's barely a song that isn't kneecapped by one of Okereke's lyrical clangers. Just one reference to "crosswords and sudoku" kills Waiting for the 7.18 stone dead, while Hunting for Witches, about fear of terrorism, is so gauche that you might find yourself feeling kindly towards John Reid"
Please contact me when you think you have addressed these points. The list is not comprehensive, and should be used as a basis for identifying other problems. Brianboulton (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments:
Your "God forbid" response, above, is a little worrying, if it implies that you would place poetic licence above accuracy or encyclopedic style. I trust this is not the case.
I'm a bit concerned that you have 15 separate citations to a single page of the Murphy article, and 12 to another page. The 15 citations to page 36 seem to cover a lot of information. Can you confirm that all the information cited to these pages is found there?
Yes, but seems to be a bit truncated for the internet, not just image wise. The one I have in the magazine is a longer spread. Rafablu8813:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you look at ref [18b]? The sentence cited reads: "The band members were largely disillusioned with the evolution of contemporary guitar music and aimed to re-create the atmosphere of neo-classical music coupled with the highly stylised production values of R&B and hip-hop records." The actual source statement is "I don't think we set out to make a neo-classical record [laughs], but I do think we relied on that kind of atmosphere."”This is saying something different from your sentence; perhaps you should rephrase?
First of all thanks for the edits, but mainly for the detailed comments which I like as they keep me on my toes.
Right, the sentence reads: The band members were largely disillusioned with the evolution of contemporary guitar music and aimed to re-create the highly stylised production values of R&B and hip-hop records,[19] while relying on an atmosphere similar to neo-classical music.[18] The first half is another source. The second half above is based on "I do think we relied on that kind of atmosphere", i.e. neo-classical music. I don't see how I'm saying something different but maybe I've become desensitised to the text. Any advice? RB88 (T) 00:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This revised version of the sentence is OK. 07:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I said earlier that my main concern was the standard of the prose. I have now read through (fairly quickly) the remainder of the article and have found numerous further problems. If you have got there first, and fixed any of them, I apologise:-
"The track ostracises right-wing newspapers..." – "ostracises"? The word means "to exclude or banish from a group or society". I guess you mean crticise or castigate, or something like that.
The second part of this same sentence needs rewording, to clarify the subject of "which"
By merely removing "unrequited" you have changed the meaning. Did the lyric deal with the unrequited crush of one boy for another, as you previously implied, or was the crush mutual, as you now imply?
The structure is still wrong and the meaning remains ambiguous. Your use of "following" is the main problem. If I am guessing the meaninig correctly, it would be better to place a full stop after metropolis and begin a new sentence: "This resulted from..." etc
Ambiguous: "Layered vocals are often used to resemble choral sections in A Weekend in the City" My guess is that you meant: "In A Weekend in the City, layered vocals are often used to resemble choral sections"
"the publication included it in its 1000 Albums To Hear Before You Die list compiled in November 2007 by praising the band's "ambitious indie soundscapes packing a sizeable political punch". The "by" should be replaced by a comma.
Then you should find another way of reworking the sentence. The inclusion in the list was a separate action from the praise, not the result of the praise.
Tours and rerelease section: this is mostly information which is not about the album which is the subject of this article.
No, the first paragraph details the tours FOR the album in summary style (i.e further promotion), which also have an effect on sales, charts, etc. The second paragraph explains the promotion before the re-release in the same vein as the actual release was covered in "Promotion and release". The section is a historical facet of the entity in question and is needed for completeness. Rafablu8813:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These prose concerns reinforce my view that the article needs to be copyedited thoroughly, by someone other than you, to help bring the prose to the standard required for featured articles. I will be happy to look at the article again, when that has been done. Brianboulton (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on the question of vague assertions, quote "This clearly meets the criteria so support. That is all." Without really trying, I have found a dozen or so prose faults. The article has improved considerably as a result of this review process, but would clearly benefit from another pair of eyes than yours, and that is what I am requesting. Brianboulton (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on title: The page title for this article is rendered in italics. I've not seen this style on any featured article relating to a song, album, film or fictional work. I've not checked MOS but this may be an issue, i.e. should the main title be A Weekend in the City, not A Weekend in the City? Brianboulton (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's been some debate about this recently. The technical ability is there. But bear with me, I'll have a look and a few discussions and will come back to say what the stance is. RB88 (T) 12:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for context, there was an RfC on this and there wasn't really a "consensus" as such but it seemed be erring on the side not using italic names, except maybe for species/genera. I hope this is fair, unbiased assemesment but for full disclosure I !voted against it at the time. Rambo's Revenge(talk)15:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'd been looking for that. Ultimately, I think it's not a massive deal. If MOS is changed in the future, then I can just delete it. It'll only take a couple of seconds. Personally, I still think however that if something is in italics in the body, then surely it has to be as such in the title. RB88 (T) 15:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"No mandate for or against" doesn't represent actual practice, and it might be prudent to follow the style adopted by all similar articles which have reached FA. Even ship names, which are invariably italicized in text, are not italicized when they appear as or in titles. Brianboulton (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"All similar articles which have reached FA" seems a bit of a cop-out other-stuff-exists argument to me. If MOS doesn't specify anything either way then why should I adhere to what everyone else is doing? The majority is not always right. I said above that it seems more professional and truer to me to add title italics if something is in italics in the text. You obviously have another opinion. But we're going round in circles now in the same way as the RFC no consensus. And also, making a mountain out of a molehill. It can be very easily deleted in the future if need be after a sturdy MOS decision against it. RB88 (T) 16:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I find the table-y and list-y sections at the bottom half of the article rather overwhelming, especially the track listing. Only the original track-listing (and that global one with the extra song, in this particular case) is ever really notable. Considering that these days albums are sold by different retailers with all sorts of bonus tracks and variations, I don't think it is particularly notable or necessary to list down all of these various formats. The track-listing for the additional remixes/live-DVD doesn't belong either.
Yep, summarised DVD stuff. Bonus tracks are needed though as they were created during the same studio sessions (i.e. the "30 sound checks" mentioned in Origins). Two of them even made the preliminary track list. Rafablu8819:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same goes for the release history section. How is a collection of release dates and catalogue dates of any interest to the general reader? Remember WP:NOTCATALOG, Wikipedia is not a "complete exposition of all possible details." All important record labels and dates have been already covered in the prose anyway.
"Release history" sections are in no way mandatory (most album FAs do not have and do not need them), and you're better off conveying that information in prose, anyway. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I never said it was mandatory. It's up to editors' discretion and I took the decision that it was so staggered release wise in terms of dates, labels, types, catalog no.s that the table was clearly beneficial. Not all the information can be contained in the prose without sounding forced and superficial. Sorry if it's making other FAs look deficient, but maybe they should have one too, especially the older ones who have had a re-release in the 21st century. Rafablu8814:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CHART: "The number of charts should include no more than ten official national charts, and up to ten additional or secondary charts, but no more than eighteen charts total." indopug (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion template is perfectly warranted. Please see WP:NFCC #10c, and note that it says "The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific fair-use rationale for each use of the item". I've re-instated the warning template to the file, as the problem has NOT been fixed. In the version you prefer, the rationale could be used to justify its existence in ANY article. That's not good enough to pass #10c. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Within a paragraph, a citation is assumed to reference all the text preceding it (apart from quotes). So you don't need to use the same ref over and over again in adjacent sentences. I just you remove all of these instances of over-referencing to enhance readability. [ Sample edit].
Sorted them out. I'm glad it's come up. I've thought about doing it but always scared someone is gonna go "oh, massive oppose, under-referenced". Rafablu8809:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that non-free image of the recording process really necessary? It isn't very clear either, with the drums and the mikes around them tiny in the background. Besides, I don't think there isn't anything particularly unique about this recording setup to warrant a fair-use pic.
Well, it's not clear because a) it's a screenshot and b) it has to be small for fair-use. It's not just about the drums miking either, it's the booth as well. I think overall it's unconventional and unique enough to warrant inclusion, especially with what is said in the adjacent text. Rafablu8809:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After a couple of discussions, I have now uploaded a clearer, slightly larger shot and reinforced the free use rationale, too. RB88 (T) 12:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Radiohead are not a post-rock band, and Snow Patrol are not world-renowned. Not as much as U2 anyway (which is what the sentence inadvertently implies).
I'm surprised that you don't choose to include the most reputed music magazines' reviews in the infobox and in the Reception section? While notable, why use Drowned in Sound, PopMatters, Rockfeedback wand Stylus, when you can have Spin, Mojo, Q and a major newspaper like the Times instead? I doubt it will be difficult to find these reviews online.
It's all subjective isn't it? You say tomaytoe, I say tomatoh. I always proceed through Metacritic's picks, the aggregate score (to show a correct rating spread), and Ealdgyth's notability guidelines. Plus now in the 21st century post-print times, people like Spin, Mojo, Q etc are behind in terms of review quality, length, and perception. Most of their writing is just stubs, whereas Drowned in Sound, PopMatters, Stylus, and Rockfeedback actually still write essays on albums like the good old times mainly because they can space-wise but also because they focus more on less mainstream music. I'm sure the reader would appreciate quality and depth rather than a two sentence paragraph with an arbitrary editorial rating. I know I do. Rafablu8809:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of the matter is that the long-standing print publications have greater critical weight. Drowned in Sound and the like should be relied on only if you can't find anything by the likes of Rolling Stone, NME, and SPIN, because they are considered the leading voices in music journalism (and they do have web presences; Rolling Stone in particular has an online version of pretty much everything that has ever been printed by it). Review length has nothing to do with it (I am reminded of a rather cutting four-word Bauhaus review by Melody Maker from the early 80s. A rather tossed-off review that i don't agree with, but it got its point across). WesleyDodds (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, m'lord. Replaced Stylus with EW since they're now defunct. Replaced Rockfeedback with the A.V. Club. The only other Metacritic established review was Blender but that was written by Dorian Lynskey who wrote The Guardian one and it wouldn't have been appropriate. Everything else was print media which I don't have and even if I did I wouldn't budge on PopMatters (see Wikipedia:Albums#Review_sites) and Drowned in Sound, who without a look in nostalgia lane, are currently probably more thorough and eminent than the Spins and Qs of this world, especially in the UK. Rafablu8812:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That list of equipment used is highly unorthodox, in that most of our articles don't have them. I don't see the point too, I doubt a casual reader would grasp the significance of any of the items on the list; it would only interests the musos. As an analogy, would you like to read a list of all the equipment in shooting a film in a film article? indopug (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFCC#1 actually states "No free equivalent." The fair use rationale reads: "The work is copyrighted, thus no free alternative is available. It was recorded in desolate, rural Ireland with no photographers, press etc. The promo video is absolutely the only piece of work that includes such studio sessions material." The questions are:
"Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" ANSWER: NO
"Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" I assume this is what you're referring to. My answer would still be: NO
The text does explain booth and miking scheme, yes, but the probabilities of ALL the readers comprehending and visualising exactly what this unorthodox set-up looked like are quite low. A booth could mean anything in terms of its erection, composite materials, and relative position. And while miking scheme is easier to visualise, their position relative to specific drum kit parts may not. I believe it satisfies criterion 1. RB88 (T) 12:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as significant contributor - hoped to find more time to help Rafa out with this but evidently school and, now, work have prevented me. Obviously worth the star and has withstood some heavy criticism here. Excellent work if I do say so myself. GARDEN19:44, 12 September 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.
Yet another German warship class article, it passed GA and Milhist A-class review within the past few weeks. I feel this is close to FAC, and the extra eyes that will examine the article here will help me fine tune the last few issues that are probably hiding in the article. Thanks in advance to all editors who take the time to review this nomination. Parsecboy (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks.Two images have good alt text (thanks), but the remaining five images lack it; please see the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review subpage.Eubulides (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good now, thanks. I tweaked its punctuation so that sentences are punctuated as such, and removed one small phrase that I couldn't immediately verify from the image itself. Eubulides (talk) 07:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Eubulides. I thought I had read somewhere that they weren't supposed to be punctuated, but then it confused me a bit, because I'd have punctuation in the middle. Thanks for clarifying that for me. Parsecboy (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, apart from the fact that I'm getting seriously dizzy from this barrage of high-quality German capital ship articles zooming through A/FA, I have no complaints...! Fixed an alt text parameter but apart from that, everything looks fine. Supported this at ACR and happy to do so again here. I'd say "keep up the good work", but somehow I doubt that's ever going to be an issue... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ian's funny comment aside, this is a terrific article. I've noted my support, although I have a couple of quibbling, niggling points, which I will bring up on the talk page. Excellent work again! Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fixed a couple of minor issues, but you really ought to explain the role of the 88 mm Flak guns, AA or anti-torpedo boat guns? Or both? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sturmvogel. They were designed as anti-aircraft guns, though I suppose they could have been used against torpedo boats in a pinch. I've added "anti-aircraft" to clarify what their purpose was. Parsecboy (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. I had written this article before Hindenburg, and it went through Milhist ACR before you noticed that. I've fixed it and added a note similar to that in Hindenburg. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bennett is cited in the third note, in regards to Admiral Fremantle's claim that he informed von Reuter of the extension of the Versailles deadline. I wrote this article more along the lines of Moltke class battlecruiser than say, König class battleship, primarily because the ships had divergent careers. Because I split it up by ship as opposed to by unit, I didn't want to go into a ton of detail, hence the lack of more citations. I have merged the "see also" section into the "notes" section. Parsecboy (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Parsecboy, that one's my fault. I hate IE8; it has this goofy thing where, when you do a search, it highlights the term in yellow and obliterates the link. I didn't see the link! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an edible blue fungus. There are more of them than you might suspect. I've exhausted my literature sources and tweaked the prose to the point of diminishing returns, and believe the article is ready to be judged for FAC. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 08:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Is current ref 3 (Lloyd...) lacking a title for the article?
Same for CCurrent ref 6 (Kauffmann...)?
Same for Current ref 10 (Kawam..)
Please double check that all your books have page numbers. I'm noticing current ref 13, 14, 16, lack them
Kuo is a well-known mycological author, and on the web page in question, he lists the sources he used. I was originally going to use his page as an external link, but thought it would be better to have it as a citation somewhere, so cited the page to two non-contentious points (spore size and spore-print color). But if you still don't think it qualifies as a RS, I can easily remove it and use another source to cite those points. Sasata (talk)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. (You can EAT blue fungus??? Yuck!) Ealdgyth - Talk20:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query article title the title is the genus, but it is a monotypic genus, and throughout the text refers to "this species", so why is isn't this article called Polyozellus multiplex, with the genus as a redirect? I don't know about mycology, but that would be normal for other life forms (eg Opisthocomiformes, Opisthocomidae and Opisthocomus all redirect to HoatzinJimfbleak - talk to me?07:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the Fungi wikiproject, we typically follow the naming conventions for flora, and on this matter it states "Where a genus is monospecific (has only a single species), the article should be named after the genus, with the species name as a redirect". Sasata (talk) 07:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So why is the article written as if it's about a species, not a genus? After the first sentence, the article refers almost invariably to "the species". Also the taxobox is a species' taxobox, not a genus box like Pyrrhocorax. It seems odd to have a title which appears to be saying "this is about a genus", and then just refer to it as a species. Maybe it's just me, but it seems very inconsistent to have the title at one taxonomic level, and the text at another - or perhaps you have been lumbered with a particularly bizarre naming convention? This is an interesting article, which I'll review in detail if I get time before I head for Canada, Jimfbleak - talk to me?06:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, and I've never really thought about it until now, just defaulted to the status quo, but doing it the other way does seem to be more logical. The other genus-level articles I've helped write are also written from the same perspective. I'll consult the wikiproject about this and get back to you. Sasata (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I initiated discussions at the relevant WikiProjects here and here. Sasata (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009
compound structure of the stem ... which has more simple stem structures. Also, what's wrong with "simpler"?
Refactored sentence so that the correct use of singular/plural is more evident: "... who thought the compound structure of the stem to be a sufficiently unique characteristic to warrant it being separated from Cantharellus species, which have simpler stem structures." Sasata (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what's the connection between polyozelin and knyapcin? It sounds as if they are closely related, but not explicit.
Support I'm going away tomorrow so it's decision time. I'm reluctant to oppose or withhold support simply on the genus/species issue, especially as it's a project thing. I still think it's illogical, but not your fault. Jimfbleak - talk to me?11:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support Jim. There doesn't seem to be any consensus to changing it to the species name, but I suspect the idea will be revisited later when more monotypic genera pass through FAC scrutiny. Sasata (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from J Milburn
I'm making a list, but I can't see there being that many points...
First of all, I fully support the MushroomExpert reference. The site is highly professional, and Kuo is a respected and published mycologist.
Personally, I'd go for two paragraphs in the lead, but if you feel that would be too much detail, I'll happily defer to your judgement.
Split the lead into two and filled it out a bit. Sasata (talk)
"or in Alaska, the black chanterelle." comma after "or"?
Not completely sure; I vaguely recall reading somewhere that she was a student around this time, and doing fieldwork for someone else, but will leave as is until I can find a source. Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Alexander H. Smith and Elizabeth Morse" Again, I'm assuming they're a pair of mycologists? How about "mycologists Alexander H. Smith and Elizabeth Morse"?
Do we have a picture of a dark Alaskan specimen? The infobox image looks pretty dark- perhaps clarify whether that is one of the darker specimens in the image caption?
It's not Alaskan, just a dark specimen, but within the color range I've seen in other pictures. I'll look around to see if there's a free pic of a black Alaskan version (but I doubt it). Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"brittle, breaking easily" Tautology?
"ellipsoid" Not a common word- link?
"nonamyloid" not sure I like the fact half of the word in wikilinked- also, shouldn't that have a dash?
"filamentous" Ditto. The section is appropriately technical (I do not support dumbing down), but we do need to try and make the technical terms accessible to the non-expert reader.
"cuticle" Ditto.
"(the pileipillus)" Is this "also known as the ...", or "in this case, the ..."? If the latter, what precisely is a pileipillus?
"septa" Again, technical.
"trumpet- or tubular shaped" Does "tubular" not also need a dash? (Not red hot on dashes...)
""fragrant chanterelle", Cantharellus odoratus," How come this common name is in quote marks, but others aren't? Personally, I wouldn't use them- your choice.
Mention Alaska in distribution?
"and is cultivated in Asian countries such as Korea, Japan, and China." It's cultivated in China, but has never been collected wild? Clarification would be good.
"preserved by drying.[23]" Any affect on the taste? You mentioned a change in smell above, I think.
"Alzheimer's disease" linky
"compound polyozellin—isolated and purified from P. multiplex" too technical for me to really comment, but would that not be better as something like "compound polyozellin—a chemical which can be isolated and purified from P. multiplex"? Also, is that chemical unique to this species?
"extract" Looks like overlinking (contrary to what I said above!)
I used extract 3 times in the article and have now linked at first mention. I think its a useful link in this case, as it gives explanatory background that helps understand the statement. Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 18- could you clarify that it is Mushroom Expert? Currently no publisher listed.
The Pilz reference is only used once- perhaps move it into the notes section? Or is it being used as a "general" refernece?
All other points you raised above and to which I've not explicitly replied, I agree with and have made changes based on your suggestions. Thanks for your careful reading! Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technical read! Because the article is so small, some paraphrasing of the technicalities could make the article more accessible to the lay reader.
Can we have "earthfans" liked to the relevant Wikitionary article?
It was linked twice, in the Habitat and distribution, and in the description. I've now changed so that it's only linked once, at its first occurrence in the History and Taxonomy section. Sasata (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I thought it might be useful, but you're the second person to point this out (see comment by JMilburne above), so I have unlinked it. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, the articles I write often border on "too technical", and it's very useful to have commentary from a non-specialist. Sasata (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support(moral or otherwise as wikiproject fungi member) I am happy with Kuo as a reference for the reasons J Milburn outlined above, I feel this is exhaustive and the prose straddles the line between accuracy and accessibility well. Well done, Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More comments As requested on my talk page, I'll give the article another look.
"blue- to purple-colored clusters of vase- or spoon-shaped caps with vein-like"
A large concentration of dashes there! A bit difficult/unnatural to read.
Can you please Annotate as many pictures as possible? That would REALLY help.
Hmmm, did not know about this feature, but it looks pretty cool. However, I'm not sure what kind of annotation would benefit the reader here... could you give an example? Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe precisely locate the "fruting body", the "hymenophore", the "individual caps", the "white powdery accumulation of spore deposit", the "hymenium", the "stem", the "tomemtum", etc. Right now, I can't visualize very well what's where on the fungus.
"5.5–8 µm" and "3 to 5 cm"
Sometimes a dash, sometimes a 'to'. Be consistent.
By this I mean do something like File:Jumping_spider_with_prey.jpg.
Good idea in theory, but I didn't take the pictures, so don't know the scale. I'm hoping the description information will give the reader a sense of the dimensions of the fungus. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realize only 50% of the pictures are of the actual species.
True, but there's not a lot of free pics available, and the two that are there are by far the best ones I could get. The two other similar-appearing species are discussed in their respective sections, so I think are justified. Sasata (talk)
"kynapcin-12,[36] kynapcin-13 and -28,[37] and -24"
Ok, so what is kynapcin, why is it interesting? Maybe add a link/expand.
"Chemicals that inhibit PEP have attracted research interest due to their potential therapeutic effects.[35] Further analyses of extracts from P. multiplex revealed similar dibenzofuranyl derivatives of polyozellin, each with different chemical properties, including kynapcin-12..." Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Polyozellus multiplex is an ectomycorrhizal species, meaning that the hyphae and mycelia of the fungus grow in a mutualistic association with the roots of plant species"
Good faith attempt to explain the concept of "ectomycorrhizal", but instead of having to following one link, I now have to follow two! (Namely 'hyphae' and 'mycelia'.)
These plants seeem to be important for the article. Can we have a picture of both put aside (like in here, for example).
Ok, done. That's a handy template. In the caption, I didn't include the specific names of the trees, as it's distracting extra info, but instead linked each picture to its respective species article. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Greek words poly meaning "many", and oz, meaning "branch""
Are poly and oz really full words, or just prefixes etc.? Maybe remove 'words'. Also, Wiktionary link poly and oz!
Not sure if they're words or not, so removed the word "words" from the sentence. Can't really wikt-link them as they are Greek and the English word has a different meaning (eg "oz" = ounce). Sasata (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Craterellus cornucopioides is a lookalike species"
Is there a reason this is not 'fruting bodies' (as elsewhere in the text)?
"Fruit body" and "fruiting body" are used pretty much interchangeably in the literature, but to be sure I checked the Dictionary of the Fungi, and saw that they endorse "fruit body", so changed all instances in the article to be consistent with that. Sasata (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What would really be awesome is a picture a some packaged (for commercial purpose) Polyozellus.
Or maybe a picture of a dish containing Polyozellus!
Yes, those would be good. Or a picture of a basketfull being sold at an open market in China. I poked around the 'net a bit, but no luck. Sasata (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"by Elizabeth Woodworth"
Is this information really important/necessary?
In retrospect, nah. I hope the ghost of Elizabeth does not come to haunt me for failing to recognize her part in the discovery of this species :) Sasata (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1920, part of a Japanese collection compiled by A. Yasuda was sent to mycologist Curtis Gates Lloyd, who believed it to be a new species and named it Phyllocarbon Yasudai."
What does 'it' refer to? 'part of a Japanese collection'?
In History and taxonomy a big part is dedicated to taxonomic reclassifications based on the macroscopic features of Polyozellus. But have any genetic studies been made to help clear up the debate? This is not mentioned. GeometryGirl (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No genetic studies that I know of. But I also don't have a source that explicitly says that no DNA studies have been done, so would be uncomfortable putting a statement like that in the article. Sasata (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the mycomorphbox should be moved to the description section, rather than placed in the header?
I'm not sure what benefit that would have... plus I think it might mess with the FixBunching template, which might lead to further problems with picture placement and bunched-up edit links. Sasata (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"it Phyllocarbon Yasudai.[3]" Is that capital correct? Is there any particular reason the specific name is capitalised? I've never seen a capital even when it's named after someone.
Yeah, it's a bit odd, but Lloyd was a bit of an oddball to begin with. I was just following the original source, but I just checked Bigelow's 1978 paper, and he doesn't use a capital, so I guess it's ok. Changed. Sasata (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 22: "Bigelo HE. (1978). "The cantharelloid fungi of New England and adjacent areas". Mycologia 70 (4): 707–56. doi:10.2307/3759354. ISSN 00275514." Unless I'm reading the template wrong, you're citing 49 pages for two facts. Any chance of narrowing it a little?
Perhaps a big ask, but some more information about it in the Asian countries would be interesting. The article currently seems to lean towards the American populations- is it as rare in Asia? Why is it in both Asia and America?
Yes, it would be ideal to reduce systematic bias by including some info from Asian sources. Unfortunately, my Chinese is limited to a couple of sentences, and the English language sources concentrate largely on their own areas. Sasata (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poking around a bit more, I was able to add this: "The disjunct distribution of this species in North America and East Asia has been noted in a number of other fungal species as well." Let me know if that helps or just leaves you hanging for more. Sasata (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"No further reported collections of the fungus were made until 1937" No further collections were recorded? I'm sure people still found/picked/ate it, just no one bothered to write about it.
Now you say it is sold in "Asian countries including...", listing all the Asian countries in which it is found. Seems a little odd to me, that's like saying "letters in the word pie, including p, i and e." See what I mean? J Milburn (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm... no (but I haven't had my morning coffee yet). To me it seems more like: "Various letters have been used to construct words related to baking products, including p, i and e." :) Please feel free to change the wording yourself. Sasata (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"poly meaning "many", and oz, meaning "branch"." When quoting a single word as the word itself, such as in translations, should italics not be used? See Wikipedia:ITALICS#Words_as_words- the examples seem a little ambiguous.
There still seems to be a little bit of inconsistency with common names in quote marks- there are the Polyozellus common names in quote marks, then other common names without them, then the lonely "The "pig's ear Gomphus", species".
Yes, I admit I'm inconsistent with that. I've seen common names used with and without quotes in the original sources and usually just go with whatever's written. For consistency, I've removed all quotes from the article. Sasata (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caption "Craterellus cornucopioides is a lookalike species" forms a complete sentence- full stop?
Has the species ever actually been used to combat tumors? Or has research merely found in contains a chemical? Perhaps the chemical when isolated from other locations has been used? "Research conducted in 2003 suggests that extracts from Polyozellus multiplex have suppressive effects on stomach cancer." Suggests that it has been done, if not, perhaps "Research conducted in 2003 suggests that extracts from Polyozellus multiplex would have suppressive effects on stomach cancer." would be better.
Support My comments are now addressed. Congrats. (Please note that, not being an expert, I've only reviewed the prose, comprehensibility and neutrality.) GeometryGirl (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I feel this article meets our featured article criteria, and sits comfortably among the best examples of our work. As ever, Sasata has improved the article drastically based on suggestions from myself and others. J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it is a comprehensive overview of the company. The article has been through peer review and GA, and I believe it's now up to featured article quality. Shubinator (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – requested by the nominator on my Talk Page. This is an interesting article, which is generally well written, but I don't think it is quite ready to be promoted. The first paragraph of the Lead focusses on Cialis, rather than Icos, and the second paragraph is mainly a blue list of medical conditions, which is not at all engaging—quite the opposite in fact. There are glitches in the prose. This sentence, for example, lacks logical flow, "The name Icos comes from a shortening of the word icosahedron, a 20-sided polyhedron, as many viruses have this shape." Changing "as" to "and" would help a little, but many readers will be left wondering about the relevance of the viruses here. Later we read, "Originally, the company's plan was to research such viruses involved in inflammation, but they were never studied." Why "such viruses", and indeed which viruses, an example would help. I also saw "Gates. Gates" and many lazy uses of "ads" instead of "advertisements". I was not happy with this sentence "The drug is a monoclonal antibody that suppresses white blood cells which become overly active during shock." Suppresses what? their production in the bone marrow, antibody or chemokine production by them, phagocytosis, white blood cells have a multitude of functions. And this sentence is wrong, "It inhibits a compound that plays a role in the inflammation seen in sepsis." It does not, it inactivates a protein, which is not the same thing—this is correctly given in the source. Here's another example of lazy writing, "In addition to the termination of Icos employees, other aspects of the acquisition were similarly legal." How were they terminated? I saw these problems during my first reading of the article, and I suspect more would be revealed by a closer scrutiny. In summary, I think the article lacks focus and the prose would benefit from a fresh pair of eyes.Graham ColmTalk12:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I hope the nominator does not take my use of the word "lazy" personally; clearly, a lot of hard work and dedication has been gone into this contribution—I am only describing the writing-style as I read it. I have made a few suggestions [35] (not all mine), but sadly, I feel too much work remains to be done that can be achieved in a reasonable time here at FAC. I think that this FAC could be very protracted and humbly suggest a withdrawal, which would allow for a fresh start later.Graham ColmTalk22:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed your specific concerns (with your help). It was suggested at the GA review that the lead should focus more on Cialis, which is why Cialis was highlighted in the first paragraph. I have changed it back to the format it was before, but this may be down to editor preference. I fixed the "Gates. Gates" and changed all "ads" to "advertisements" (though the sources themselves use "ads" in their newspaper titles). Also added a sentence on LeukArrest inhibiting white blood cell movement to the brain, changed "inhibits a compound" to "inactivates a protein", and changed "termination" to "layoff". I don't take it personally; I know it becomes harder to spot errors the longer you work on a piece. As I've said below, I'll leave this open a little while longer since FAC is one of the best ways to get fresh eyes. Shubinator (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – I'll start looking over it and massaging prose and making some suggestions below. I am mindful of what Graham has noted above but let's try and get a handle on what needs doing. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cialis section is ungainly - see the 'Tadalafil' at the stat of each para. I am sorry that I didn't offer more at Peer Review. My impression is either pushing on for a (possibly very messy) FAC, or drop it and work on it before renominating. I will chip in either way but have a lot on my plate at the moment. Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section was rearranged to avoid starting each paragraph with "Tadalafil" (thanks Graham). Any help/suggestions are appreciated. (see below for my comment on withdrawing) Shubinator (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this may have a small chance of passing now, but I would like to leave the FAC open for at least a few more days to get suggestions for improvement (especially in the science). The article was looked over by a few others (Looie496, Mattisse, Enigmaman) before, but I'll try to find another copyeditor. Shubinator (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the footnote necessary in the sentence The company focused on developing drugs to treat inflammatory disorders in the lede? If this is repeated elsewhere, or if it's clear throughout the article anyway, then it might not be necessary to have the footnote in the lede.
Icos conducted clinical trials of a dozen compounds, three of which reached the last phase of testing : The article has sections on three 'other drugs', plus Cialis, so I want to check to see if I'm understanding it right... is Cialis not included in the total there because GlaxoSmithKline, not Icos, did the clinical trials? (And if that is the case, what does it mean to say that Icos "developed" the drug?) And, while we're on that, what does "reached their last phase of testing" mean? I'm not familiar with pharmaceutical stuff, so I'm not sure if this is an important milestone in drug development or anything...does it mean they were never released on the market but they were still 'official' anyway?
Oops, I miscounted... I guess the three being referred to are Cialis, LeukArrest, and Pafase? And Sitaxsentan sodium and TBC3711 (which I had been reading incorrectly as one drug) did not make it to the "last phase of testing" before Icos sold them? rʨanaɢtalk/contribs04:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a lower section, As a result, Cialis advertisements were also the first to describe the side effects in an advertisement, as the FDA requires advertisements with specifics to mention side effects : I don't quite see the cause-effect relationship here, or why the aside about the FDA requirement is necessary. Is it that FDA didn't have this requirement before, and then they introduced it, and Cialis was the first drug to be marketed under the new requirements? If that is the case, it could probably be made more explicit.
The regulations require disclosure of side effects if you essentially say "Buy our product!" The other ED drugs described ED, and said "see your doctor for more", so they didn't describe side effects. I've added a bit to clarify this. Shubinator (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who was Paul Clark (before becoming CEO and chairman)? His name seems to pop up rather suddenly.
For Cialis, why are sales figures listed for 2006 and no other years—ie, what is significant about 2006? It seems like it might be that 2006 was the first year Icos ever made a profit, but I had to search around for that a little bit. Also, this raises two other questions: 1) when was Cialis first put on the market?; 2) if Cialis didn't go on the market until 2006 and/or Icos never made a profit until then, what were they doing for their first 16 years???
Oops, I just found the answer to the first question, down in the next paragraph. But I think the section could be reorganized a bit... either the Cialis timeline should be mentioned earlier, or the sales stuff mentioned later. I was confused to see sales figures being mentioned before I had read when the drug hit the market, etc. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs04:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2006 is special because it's the only year I have third-party data for :) A few other drugs were being developed during that time (see lower down in the article). Drug development takes a while. I rearranged the first part in the Cialis section to be more chronological. Shubinator (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has also been approved for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) in the United States, and marketed as Adcirca.[10] : This sentence is more or less repeated at the bottom of that section, and probably doesn't need to be. I imagine you were trying to use the first paragraph of the section as sort of a mini-lede, but the section is short enough already that I don't think that's necessary; I would probably just hold off on mentioning Adcirca until the bottom of the section, (the paragraph beginning "In May 2009..."). rʨanaɢtalk/contribs04:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pfizer and Lilly Icos have contested many lawsuits : slightly awkward wording, at first it made me think they together had to face lots of lawsuits from outside (class action suits or whatever), and it wasn't until later that I realized it meant they had lots of lawsuits against one another.
In the United States, Pfizer filed suit against Lilly Icos soon after receiving a broad patent for PDE5 inhibitors in October 2002. : I had to re-read this because at first I was like "wait, but I thought they didn't get a patent?" After looking more closely, I guess the understanding I'm supposed to get is: 1) Pfizer gets British patent 2) Lawsuit in British court 3) Pfizer gets US patent 4) Lawsuit in US court. Anyway, I understand that it would be quite awkward to write "Pfizer filed suit in the United States... after receiving a broad patent in the United States...". But I do think it's necessary to do something to make it clearer that we're talking about two different patents.
Pfizer moved to block sales of Cialis, arguing that there could be consumer backlash against Pfizer should Cialis be pulled from the market as a result of an ongoing patent lawsuit. : This sentence stumped me for a bit, I think because I don't understand the difference between "blocking sales" and "pulling from the market". Do you mean that Cialis had not yet gone on the market at all, and Pfizer wanted to keep it off the market altogether so it wouldn't be pulled back out of the market later? If that is the case, adding a date or a little mention of where this was with regards to the Cialis timeline would be helpful.
Yes, Pfizer's saying the drug shouldn't be sold now, because it may be pulled from the market later. I changed that part to "Pfizer moved to block sales of Cialis five months after it was approved there". Shubinator (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general, the section sounds a bit anti-Pfizer. I don't know much about all this, so for all I know maybe they really were being jerks... but if there is anything that could be done to balance it or present their side of the story, that might be helpful.
I looked over all the lawsuit section sources, and there aren't any comments from Pfizer, or analysts giving a more balanced picture. There's just more like "Pfizer has mounted a worldwide patent challenge against Cialis and Levitra". Shubinator (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the Marketing section, Cialis has sponsored many sports events, such as the America's Cup and the PGA Tour, and was title sponsor of the PGA Tour Western Open tournament.[2] might not be necessary. It doesn't seem like a huge deal, given that lots of drugs sponsor lots of events, and this one is already notable enough that it doesn't need to struggle for WP-notability with refs like this. But, since I don't know much about pharmaceutical stuff, maybe this is a bigger deal than I realize.
I'm still not quite sure what advertisements directly targeting consumers refers to, even after reading the source (which just confused me more). In the source, it says that Viagra commercials went from being Viagra-pushing to just saying "talk to your doctor about ED"; from your comments, it sounds like Cialis did the opposite (marketing Cialis specifically). But both are described as being "aimed directly at consumers"...
I removed this sentence too; it's not really related. Before 1997, none of the ED ads would have been allowed. The idea was that only doctors should be telling you what medicine to take. Shubinator (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the long list of conditions at the beginning of the "Other drugs" section, is there a source? Or is this just a compilation of sourced things from below?
For Pafase, a couple sentences say early trials showed a reduction in 28-day death rate, but then next it says a later trial showed that it didn't increase "chance of survival"...why the discrepancy? Did the later trial have different methodology, or more subjects, or something like that? Or was it measuring "chance of survival" using a different standard?
The source [36] doesn't specify any differences. They were at different stages of clinical trials though, and as trials progress more subjects are used and in general they become more rigorous. Shubinator (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eos would have non-exclusive rights to Icos's CHEF1 enhanced mammalian protein expression technology. : this is the first (and I think only) time this technology is mentioned in the article. Is there any other technology stuff, other than drug development/trials, that Icos did that is not described in the article?
I'm not sure. There aren't any third-party refs of other technology; even CHEF1 is from a press release, so I don't want to give it undue weight. Shubinator (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eli Lilly increased its offer to $34 per share, a 6 percent increase : how much does this increase work out to in the total amount? (I suppose I could do the math to find out, but I bet most readers won't want to :) )
Is the long list of all the managers' severance packages necessary, or could it just be replaced by a brief mention?
How about cutting out the values and saying these people received over $1 million? I don't want to remove it since much of the news at the time of the acquisition was about the packages. (This was reflected in the Wikipedia article too; this was what it looked like before I touched it.) Shubinator (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last thing: is this about all there is to say on Icos, or is there anything more? Specifically, I'm thinking, could you go through the Pfizer and Eli Lilly and Company articles (and any other relevant ones in Category:Pharmaceutical companies), looking at their structures/TOCs, and see if there are any analogues for Icos? Since Icos was shorter-lived and smaller than those companies, I don't expect this article to be as long or have as many sections, but I figured we should at least check to see if there are any holes left.
I glanced at those, as well as Bayer and Merck & Co., and the one piece that might apply is environmental stuff. However, I've scoured all the newspapers that mentioned Icos before, and they don't mention anything environmental. Some stuff like Corporate Architecture only makes sense for large companies, and the Awards sections seem tangential (and the newspapers didn't mention Icos getting any award worth mentioning). I think I've used the meat (of reliable refs) to the bone. Shubinator (talk) 06:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last comment: I'm still concerned about the inclusion of the long list of names; to me it seems almost petty (no offense intended to you, it was there before you even touched the article). If it were up to me, I would just say "X high-level employees of Icos got severance packages of over $1.5 million" or something along those lines. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs00:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support An informative and well-researched article, and it seems to say as much as there is to say on this topic—I see no big holes. I notice there has been some more copyediting in the past day or so, but IMO it all looks pretty minor, so I'm not worried about it. As for concerns about this article's overlap with Tadalafil, I'm satisfied that it's handled well: that article has more information on scientific details and stuff that aren't in this article, while this article focuses more on business-y things and, in general, stuff that Icos did with the drug (so it's more about Icos' handling of the drug than about the drug itself); also, I'm not bothered by the fact that this article focuses mostly on that drug, since it does seem to be Icos' main claim to fame. Another image or two (for example, of the former Icos headquarters, or some of their other drugs, or its founders and people like that) would be nice, but I don't think the article is suffering for lack of images. All in all, I think this is a fine article and meets all the FA criteria. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs19:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm trying to get more pictures. A former employee emailed me a beautiful picture of the headquarters during sunset, but it turned out Eli Lilly owned the copyright, and their legal department wouldn't budge. (Also, it immediately fails NFCC #4 since I don't think it's previously been published, so no fair use.) Shubinator (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A comprehensive and commendably well-written piece of work. I worked a bit on the prose where it was still somewhat clumsy (particularly the Cialis section and subsections), and am convinced that the rest of the article meets criterion 1(a). A couple of nitpicks:
I like to link the different phases of clinical trials (II/III etc.) to their respective sections in the clinical trial article. Just a suggestion, though.
In "LeukArrest": LeukArrest was also tested for treatment of heart attack, multiple sclerosis, and stroke. Unsuccessfully, I presume?
In the Pafase section: the enzyme was discovered in the mid-1980s by graduate student Diana Stafforini, Steve Prescott, Guy Zimmerman, and Tom McIntyre. Was Ms. Stafforini the only graduate student in the group? Are there any institutional affiliations worth mentioning, e.g. were they all from academia or was somebody an Icos employee? Also, The gene for Pafase would be clearer as The gene that codes for Pafase or The gene that encodes Pafase.
I've changed all instances of sitaxsentan to sitaxentan (the new International Nonproprietary Name). You may want to note that sitaxentan development was successful—it is already available in Europe if memory serves.
I've also made some changes for accuracy, in response to your wishes at Maralia's talk page.
Added "unsuccessfully". I think all the clinical trials were stopped once the phase III one was stopped.
Yes, she was the only graduate student, and the group's from the University of Utah (clarified/added in the article). I don't think any went on to become Icos employees; the Salt Lake Tribune article from 2000 suggests they're all still at the University of Utah. Changed to "The gene that codes for Pafase", much better than my version.
Added a sentence that on its approval in Europe, Australia, and Canada.
Support tweaked nicely and succinctly. Comprehensive and to the point. Maybe some more copyediting in it but no dealbreakers prosewise nor omissions stand out. Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images:
File:Icos logo.png; can we get a real fair use rationale, rather than one filled with one-word answers? Why does this image meet WP:NFCC?
OK, striking, but you should really learn how to make your own custom fair use text and not rely on boilerplate. There are going to be some images where doing the defaults simply won't fly. </lecture> --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)00:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The word "biotechnology" is used four times in the first three sentences and five times in the first paragraph. Is there any way to recast any of these sentences to avoid the repetition? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets FA requirements. I've thoroughly researched the storm and have found no additional information for it. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*"...people proceeded to cleanup litter, secured outdoor items and made sure their disaster kits were stocked." I think the verb tense is wrong. I think correct would be "...people proceeded to cleanup litter, secure outdoor items and make sure their disaster kits were stocked."
*"On April 23, a rescue mission with three aircraft recovered roughly 20 fishermen and one was not found." The "and" makes it sound like something additional was found. I would suggest something like "...20 fisherman, while one was still missing."
*"The waves knocked the drill used to find the oil out of position; it would take several days before the drill was repositioned." I would make that "knocked a drill used to find oil" and change the part after the semi-colon to "it would take several days for the drill to be repositioned". The current version sounds as if the drill was immediately repositioned, while the next sentence says it isn't.
Support - The writing seems up to scratch though i would add the words tropical cyclone to the Australian intensity scale. Images and sources also seem fine. Jason Rees (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is easily the most comprehensive account of this island, online or off. It is thoroughly researched, well-written, neutral and stable. Hesperian12:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
agree with the statement about the article being comprehensive but a couple of small points;
lead needs to be expanded, with at least a second paragraph
images horizon lines, especially the one in the flora section are tilted.
Thanks. I'll see what I can do about the lead. I've fixed the images, except the fenceline one, in which the horizon probably does slope. They haven't purged through yet, so you'll have to take my word for it. I see you've changed one "roughly" to "approximately", and I've changed another to "around". I've left the last one: there's something mischievously poetic about "roughly diamond-shaped". ;-) Hesperian12:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Conspicuously absent is a map placing the island's location in context (i.e. showing both the island and some geographical feature, probably Australia, that would be immediately recognizable to most readers). Is there a reason for this? Steve Smith (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> It isn't, I suppose. This is the only source I could find for the assertions that the island has a school and a pub—claims that are separately corroborated by equally unreliable sources here and here respectively. Therefore I succumbed to temptation. I've removed the claims and the citation. :-( Hesperian23:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the population figure, you state 130 seasonal fishermen in the infobox, as of 2006. In the body of the article, you state 130 seasonal fishermen, but it refers to something published in 2003. Are these figures likely to have changed since 2006/3? Which date is the correct one?
The founding of a permanent camp is given in 1947, and you state that the population increased to 130 by today, but aren't those seasonal inhabitants, not permanent?
The list of plants seems to be overkill. It's longer than the entire Human Uses section, and doesn't add much. I'd suggest chopping it, since you did such a good job on the rest of the flora section.
If temperature figures are available, I suggest using Template:Infobox Weather to spruce up the climate section.
Raw data for the island is available, and based on that some general assertions have been published about the island's climate, but monthly averages themselves have not been published. I don't think it would be appropriate for us to synthesise averages out of the raw data. Hesperian11:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The camp is permanent; the population is seasonal. i.e. at the end of the season, the crayfishers go home, but the camp remains. Hesperian11:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've got an "as of 2007" and an "as of 2006" in the article, which is a concern for an article in 2009.
Unfortunately, I have to work with the body of reliable sources in existence. Better to be upfront about the fact that some of this data is dated. Hesperian11:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and given the article a scrubbing for smoothness, clarity, and grammar. If anything looks wonky, drop a note on my talk page. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review; much appreciated.
I've restored a few little bits where removal might have created misconceptions or errors of fact; e.g. converting "Possible reasons for this include..." to "Reasons for this include..." results in a misrepresentation of the source. I also restored a little bit of variation in the prosody: I don't like every sentence to follow the same subject-verb-noun formula. Hesperian11:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment Well researched, well illustrated and linked to a family of supporting articles in Category:Houtman Abrolhos, the vast majority created by the author. There are a few minor issues regarding wording in the following sentences:
Lead
"It is also used as conservation habitat for rare birds and vegetation communities"
2 Geography
"Reefs that formed during the Eemian interglacial (about 125,000 years ago), when sea levels were higher than today, are above sea level, and make up the basement of the group's central platform islands: West Wallabi Island, East Wallabi Island, and North Island."
6 Fauna
"it has been suggested that the island once had a native population of the introduced Tammar Wallaby"
Thanks. I've rephrased all three, though in each case I'm not certain that I've addressed what you're driving at. I've assumed your points are: (1) "rare" could attach to one or both nouns; (2) horrid prose; (3) clash of "native" with "introduced. Hesperian11:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being specific, the section of the first phrase that to me seems NQR is "used as", though you have rightly corrected an ambiguity that I missed. Melburnian (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"North Island was discovered in May 1840..." Are we sure that (1) There is no record of Indigenous occupation or use of the island, and (2) the Dutch, Portugese etc never identified it as an island in journals or charts? I typed "Houtman Abrolhos" into Google, and clicked on the very first link, and I found "Commonly referred to as “The Abrolhos”, the islands are named after Dutch Commander Frederik de Houtman, who came across several of the low-lying, coral-reef fringed islands in June 1619. The word Abrolhos is thought to be derived from the Portuguese expression Abre os olhos, meaning “keep your eyes open”." and "The Dutch East India Company's vessels, Batavia and Zeewijk, are probably the best known of the Abrolhos wrecks. The Batavia hit Morning Reef, near Beacon Island in the Wallabi Group, in 1629 while the Zeewijk was wrecked on Half-Moon Reef in the Pelsaert Group in 1727. Eighteen other historic wrecks have been discovered in Abrolhos waters." While i recognise these remarks do not mention North Island in particular, the failure to note this background or context, and to lead in with a 'discovery' in 1840, I think creates a misleading picture.
I disagree that the article is creating a misleading picture. All the evidence, and all the sources, point to an isolated outlying island that was unoccupied and undiscovered until 1840. The fact that some islands to the south have a much longer history is irrevelant. If you want to know about the history of the Houtman Abrolhos as a whole, read Houtman Abrolhos. That fact is, shipwrecks a hundred kilometres to the south are not "background or context" for this article, and the "'discovery' in 1840" was in fact the discovery in 1840.
The only way I could address this comment would be to write that the islands to the south were known of since the early 17th century, but North Island wasn't discovered until 1840. Since no source has made such a juxtaposition, this would be a novel synthesis that advances the position that the late discovery of North Island is surprising. Hesperian00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that being the case, I recommend the text read something like "The Houtman Abrolhos islands were first recorded by Dutch Commander Frederik de Houtman in 1619; however, the first record of North Island was in May 1840, during the third survey voyage of HMS Beagle. etc" I suggest this because one cannot prove a negative - if de Houtman 'discovered' the islands in general, i am presuming there is no way to prove that he did not see North Island, but also no reference in his journals etc that he did. I am suggesting a text that avoids making a claim either way. However, if the literature in the field does in fact suggest that a reasonable interpretation of de Houtman is that he definitely did not sight North Island, then I have no concern about the existing text. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer not to include information general to the Abrolhos here. If the point is to step back from a firm claim of primacy for the Beagle, then how about a short and sweet "The earliest known sighting of North Island occurred in May 1840, during the third survey voyage of HMS Beagle, commanded by John Clements Wickham." This qualifies the claim that Wickham was definitely the first to see it, and makes a little more explicit the fact that there is no evidence of indigenous habitation or even awareness. Hesperian02:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The text should make some reference as to the islands' political geography - were the islands claimed by Britain directly? Was / is the island part of Western Australia, and when did it / they become so?
Under "Conservation": the reference to "finfish" may confuse a lay reader, who will wonder what sort of fish they are. The WP article fish says that "In some contexts, especially in aquaculture, the true fish are referred to as finfish (or fin fish) to distinguish them from [things like cuttlefish and jellyfish etc]" In the circumstances, i would replace "finfish" simply with "fish" in the North Island article.
Image review I don't think there should be images in the reference section. The images from eneabba.net are really poor quality; is there any way of getting better-quality images? Copyright status and alt text for the images seem fine, although I haven't gone into the OTRS tickets to check those. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the FA criteria. It just went through a Peer Review and an experienced copy-editor did a final lookover. Actually, that's it, thank you.--Music26/1121:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done; thanks.Alt text has minor problems. It contains what appear to be sentences, but these needed to be punctuated and written with proper grammar.Eubulides (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks good - profile image fair use rationale checks out (though it looks like a promo; if it is it's worth mention in the caption) and Gibson image checks out. I think it'd be good to mention the episode beat fellow Family Guy episode "PTV" for the Annie Award. Also, last ref doesn't support "the second Family Guy episode to be given this title after a repeat of season three's "And the Wiener Is..." in 2005." Please fix these. The Flash{talk}00:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looks good now, but is there any additional info from the commentary? I'd expect there'd be at least a little amount of such for production... The Flash{talk}16:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, sorry. Does anybody in the FG WikiProject have it? I wasn't really asking you in particular, I was asking in general if the project had access. The Flash{talk}15:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a paragraph of the most important stuff from the commentary; the rest was just detailing the history of each individual joke. Tezkag72 (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic. If the detailed info is useful for the cultural refs section you could maybe add it there, otherwise it is fine how it is now.--Music26/1117:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The cultural references section is big enough; if it had any more detailed information it would probably be considered cruft. Tezkag72 (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article as a whole looks great, the best Family Guy article I've seen, meets all the criteria, could in time become part of a season four-based topic, yada yada yada... Tezkag72 (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Family Guy composers were actually interviewed by Dan Goldwasser, one of SoundtrackNet's co-creators. I don't see how this is unreliable.--Music26/1120:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"reruns on Adult Swim became Adult Swim's" repetitive
"and DVDs sold over three million copies."?
"The episode also contains many cultural references; in the opening sequence Peter lists 29 shows that were cancelled during the time Family Guy was off the air and says that if all those shows were to get cancelled, they might have a chance at returning." Sounds funny.
Oppose barring prose improvement. I'm not going to list each sentence and how to improve it. The lead is OK after you addressed my comments, but the Plot section does not flow well. I imagine the following sections need work as well. You may need a copy edit from an uninvolved editor, or you may be able to fix it yourself. Anyways, I'm watching this page, so if you tell me if I should check it again. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plot section. There's a bit of repetitiveness and unnecessary words in it.
"When Lois yells out George Clooney's name while having sex with Peter, he discovers that she pretends he is someone else to maintain her interest." he she he her (trimmed a bit)
"and leave their anthropomorphic dog Brian to take care of their " their their (trimmed a bit)
"vodka that actually belongs" actually (removed)
"On their way to their vacation spot" their their (reworded)
" They are forced to spend all their honeymoon money on repairs and are about to head home when Peter finds out actor Mel Gibson has a personal suite at a luxurious hotel nearby." pretty long (put a comma in to break it up a little)
Second and third paragraph have the word "Peter" in them 14 times. (removed a few)
"they are spotted by two priests, Gibson's associates," colon or semi-colon (?? - no)
I'll read the last paragraph later.
The Production section is pretty good..
"MacFarlane believed the show's three year hiatus was good, because animated shows do not get hiatusus" awkward
"Walter Murphy, who had composed music for the show prior to its cancellation returned to compose the music for "North by North Quahog"." add a comma? (yes, done)
"As promotion for the show FOX organized four Family Guy Live! performances" sounds funny. (comma added there)
"It also showed previews" "It" is the the promotion? (actually works better in passive here)
Support I've only glanced at the last section, but I feel comfortable with the prose now. A word here or there could be changed, but its personal preference, and doesn't effect the FA criteria. I just want to mention one thing. I write similar, small, pop-culture GA/FAs, and a lot of times the only thing when you start is a Plot section. For GA, I just check it for grammar and move on. With FA, I think most plot sections should be almost compeletely rewritten. No clue if that applies here, but it just reminded me of some of my GA/FA experiences. Anyways, great job. I'm very impressed with WP's coverage of animated TV shows. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(redent)Actually, I'm not liking the Reception section. My support will be coming soon. (sounds funny means I don't know the technical writing word for the problem). I'm really shooting from the hip, so if you don't agree, you can leave it and it won't effect my support.
"The episode was led in by" passive voice or something
" 350th episode of The Simpsons and another episode of The Simpsons, and was followed by the pilot episode of MacFarlane's new show," repetitive and sounds funny
' The "North by North Quahog" ratings were Family Guy's highest ratings since the airing of the season one episode "Brian: Portrait of a Dog".[38] Family Guy was the week's highest-rated show among teens and men in the 18 to 34 demographic.[39] The episode was nominated for an Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Animated Program (for Programming Less Than One Hour).' doesn't flow well
Not to be a jerk, and add a carrot to go with the stick, I like the following sentence (not the only one, just one that pleases my sense of writing for whatever reason). " In a simultaneous review of the two episodes of The Simpsons that preceded the episode and the American Dad! pilot, Chase Squires of the St. Petersburg Times stated that "North by North Quahog" "score[d] the highest".
Oppose on FA crtieria. I echo the above user. There are redundancies throughout that need to be cut, and it's not a matter of grammatical accuracy as it is poor syntax. I'm also not sure The Daily Lobo meets FA criteria for high quality sources, and in a cursory search of my Proquest database I found many sources that could be used to improve the article, threform I dont think it meets well-researched criteria. Martin Raybourne (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've contacted a copy-editor, in the meantime, if you've found refs that could help, you can mail them to me at pietjepuk93@live.nl. Thanks.--Music26/1123:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have bundled a large group of references. I simply do not have the time to check every one for germane information and content, so you'll have to do the sorting yourself. My concerns about The Daily Lobo have not been addressed, and right now the content appears unaccessible[40]. Given what I've found I still dont believe the article meets the well researched critera. Martin Raybourne (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
leaning Support - I have given it a run-through copyedit and massaged the prose a bit. Nothing jumps out at me as a deal-breaker prose-wise now but I might be blinded to it now. If Peregrine and Martin have another readthrough and point out outstanding glitches we might be able to wrap this one up. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These performances sold out, were attended by around 1,200 people each and took place in Los Angeles and New York.[9] - better as These performances, which took place in Los Angeles and New York, sold out and were attended by around 1,200 people each.
Overlinking: Please justify the linking of such items as "vodka", "cocaine" and "community service". (WP:OVERLINKING) Then I see "Australian" (very obscure), "crop-duster" (a, not an). Pipe to "the pilot episode", so people know it's not just the dictionary word, but this specific episode. The writing looks ok to me. Tony(talk)13:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm concerned that the plot summary is entirely unsourced. Are there any secondary sources that describe the plot, and that could be used here? Jayjg (talk)00:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that it's not common practice to do so. On the other hand, it would definitely improve plot summaries if we cited what reliable secondary sources thought was relevant and salient about the plot. Jayjg (talk)03:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered if that's what you were thinking. In that case, I completely disagree, and that intrepretation has been rejected by the community. Summarizing a primary source or a secondary source leaves the same room for OR. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the copyedit is done, has anyone contact MartinRayborne to revisit? Do we have further clarification on his concerns over sourcing? Karanacs (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just left him a note, I haven't received any e-mails yet. Though, in my experience, each FAC usually has one or two users opposing but are outnumbered.--Music26/1116:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
in the opening sequence Peter lists 29 shows that were canceled by FOX during the time Family Guy was off the air and says that if all of those shows were to be canceled, they might have a chance at returning ...
In fact, who are Peter and Lois, and why are they unlinked in the lead, but linked in the article? Please provide some basic definitions of these characters so we don't have to try to figure who is watching someone's children. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever been tempted to personally secede from your country? Probably. Most of us don't actually do this, because the end result would be anarchy (imagine having to show a passport to go visit your next-door neighbor!). In 1826, one Texas man did declare his land to be a new republic, and he convinced 30 other settlers to join him. He even signed a treaty with the Cherokee and designed his own flag. It was a pretty half-hearted rebellion, but it had some amazingly long-term consequences—it was the precursor to the Texas Revolution a decade later. I hope you enjoy this latest installation of crazy Texas antics (seriously, HOW did these people win a revolution?), and I hope you find no problems with the article; if you do, I will be happy to take a look. Karanacs (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no knowledge of the subject matter, but after a lit search am wondering why none of the following sources are cited in the article: Sasata (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Jackson (2005). Indian Agent: Peter Ellis Bean in Mexican Texas. ISBN=978-1585444441. Chapter 5 = "The Fredonian Rebellion". pp. 61–76.
Eugene C. Barker (1925). The Life of Stephen F. Austin, Founder of Texas, 1793–1836. Dallas: Cokesbury Press. 551 pp.
Carlos E. Castaneda. (1950). The Fight for Freedom, 1810–1836. Austin, Texas: Von Boeckmann-Jones Co. 384 pp.
Richard Drinnon (1972). White Savage; the case of John Dunn Hunter. New York: Schocken Books. 282 pp.
Richard Drinnon (1975). "The Metaphysics of Empire-Building: American Imperialism in the Age of Jefferson and Monroe". The Massachusetts Review16(4):666–688
Edmund Morris Parsons. (1967). "The Fredonian Rebellion". Texana5(1):11–52
Hodding Carter. (1971). Doomed road of empire: The Spanish trail of conquest (The American trails series). McGraw-Hill. 407 pp.
The abstract of one source I see claims this about Humphrey Jackson (1784-1833): "As militia officer he helped to put down the Fredonian Rebellion." However, his name isn't mentioned in the article. Source: Andrew Forest Muir. (1965). Humphrey Jackson, alcalde of San Jacinto." Southwestern Historical Quarterly68(3):361–365.
Thanks for checking out the sources! From a quick review, the following sources are not appropriate:
Life of Stephen F. Austin - that is a very old biography (there are more recent, better ones), and this incident was extremely minor in Austin's life. It would rate a mention, yes, but not enough discussion to add anything to the article.
The Castaneda book is an overview of Mexican Texas; the Davis book I cite is a more recent (and better received) analysis of the same period.
The Carter book is primarily concerned with Spanish rule, which ended before the events of this article took place.
The Jackson source would be too specific - he was one of 250 in Austin's colony who volunteered to help, and none of them actually fought. (see also [42])
I'll check out the others tomorrow and see if they would be useful.
My library had a copy of the Peter Ellis bean book, and I've added a few details from it.[43] The book added nothing new to the analysis of the impact of the event. I have not been able to track down the other sources, but I am fairly confident that they would not have more to add. Karanacs (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be thorough, I consulted Gregg Cantrell's recent biography of Stephen F. Austin. One page was devoted to the Fredonian Rebellion, and all applicable information was already covered by other sources cited in this article. Karanacs (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I made some corrections, hope I didn't mess anything up. Article looks good, expect for the following sentence: "After Chaplin's victory, many settlers alleging vote-stacking in an appeal to Juan Antonio Saucedo, the political chief of the Department of Bexar." Wasn't 100% sure if "alleged" was to be substituted in there. Also one small question about "...in April 1827 the Towakoni and Waco sued for peace." Could you clarify "sued"... did the Indians take them to court? Sasata (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your corrections look great, thanks very much! I changed "alleging" to "alleged", and wikilinked sued for peace to provide more clarity. (It's not a court action but is instead a diplomatic process.) Karanacs (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a terrific article on a very interesting piece of US History. It is thoroughly researched using the most scholarly sources on the subject matter. I do not see the need to cite less scholarly sources or sources of equal scholarship when they say the same thing anyway. NancyHeisetalk16:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - with regard to Criterion 1a. I found a few typos [44], which I took the liberty of fixing. An engaging article, which was a pleasure to read, thank you. Graham ColmTalk15:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Anglo" (in the first sentence) isn't a word, it's a prefix. It should be replaced with "English", "English-speaking", "Anglo-Saxon", or some similar term. Kaldari (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Anglo" is actually commonly used as a noun among historians of this period in Texas history (1821-1836). It refers to anyone who was not born in Mexico/Spanish territory. Karanacs (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While it may be easy for people familiar with Texas history to know what "Anglo" means, it is by no means a well-known or well-used term (by itself). Why wouldn't you want to replace it will a term anyone could understand? Kaldari (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to but in - but - I'm butting : ) - why not just wikilink Anglo which is properly and commonly used alone, not simply as a prefix. See definition in Merriam Webster dictionary. [45]NancyHeisetalk03:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this for FAC in early July (first FAC) and it was not promoted, I think mainly because of ongoing editing—my discussion with another user at the FAC became more of an unofficial peer review, so it was probably correct to not promote it until things had finished. Since then, however, that review has finished, and it has also been reviewed by another editor; thus, since I came to it, this article has had reviews/comments from Akerbeltz (here and around), Ricardiana (GAN), H1nkles (PR), Kwamikagami (old FAC and here), and an extensive copyedit/review from GeometryGirl (this and subsequent sections), as well as numerous copyedits from me. Now it is a good resource for all kinds of readers, both as a useful introduction for lay readers and beginning Chinese students, and as a detailed analysis and comprehensive bibliography for readers with a strong background in linguistics and/or Chinese language. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs16:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment: A rather didactic tone is apparent with phrases such as "To summarize," and "Note that," early in the article. Can these be removed? I will try and comment further later, and will do light copyedits as I read through. First impression: great work in developing the article to this stage. Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed those two--thanks for the catch. I don't think it was me who put those in, but the article history is too long to go searching, and it doesn't really matter anyway--the point is perfecting what's there now :). I will give it another read-through to try to see if there are any other 'didactic' bits other than those. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs22:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks), but there are some areas where it can be improved:
For File:OracleShell.JPG the alt text duplicates the caption (see WP:ALT#Repetition). Also, since the image contains prominent text it would be helpful if the alt text transcribed it (see WP:ALT#Tricky lettering). Can you turn it into Unicode?
For File:Ma Lin 001.jpg the alt text contains text "(1246, Ma Lin)" that cannot be verified just from the image, and needs to be removed or reworded; see WP:ALT#Verifiability.
Similarly, File:CCTV Building.jpg has alt text containing "China Central TV tower" which needs to be removed or reworded.
The phrases "blue sky in the background" is not-that-relevant detail and can be removed.
File:OracleShell.JPG: the text is ancient Chinese and, as far as I know, does not have unicode for most of it—other than the few characters that are nearly the same as their present-day characters, like 早, most of these cannot be typed. I don't know how crucial it is, though; judging by the link you gave to Purely Decorative Images in this edit summary, it seems to me that either all of these images qualify as "purely decorative", or none do. The text on this oracle bone inscription is certainly not really relevant to the point being made; it's mostly just a decoration to break up the prose.
Further comments: This is by no means an easy article to read, but for those with patience (and a curiosity for the unfamiliar) it is worth the effort. I have read about two-thirds; my comments are mainly prose quibbles.
Count-classifiers and mass-classifiers
"Within the range of mass-classifiers, authors have proposed subdivisions..." Who are these "authors"?
There are footnotes after each subdivision discussed (currently, it's footnotes 18–20); this sentence is basically just a mini-introduction to the paragraph. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs16:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...go so far as to propose..." is a bit POV-ish. Suggest delete the "go so far as to" and replace "propose" with "suggest"
Removed "so so far as"... I think 'propose' is better than 'suggest', though, since it is just a theory and, like most syntax theories, is pretty difficult to prove or disprove independently. (Then again, I suppose most of what's here is theory as well.)rʨanaɢtalk/contribs16:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verbal classifers: again the hint of POV – who describes Li and Thompson's work as "seminal"?
Li & Thompson (1981) and Chao (1968) are pretty much the 'Bibles' of Chinese linguistics, and almost every article or book on Chinese linguistics written since then cites both of them. (That's not to say they're right; they are, of course, outdated, and we often spend more of our time arguing against them than for them... but they are still generally seen as a starting point, at least, especially in English-language publications.) That being said, the word "seminal" is not necessary here, so I've removed it. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs16:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relation to nouns
This sentence: "The Chinese languages each have a large number of nominal classifiers" is virtually an exact repeat of the opening sentence of paragraph 2 under the "Types" heading.
This sentence: "The specific factors that govern which classifiers are paired with which nouns have been a subject of debate among linguists" could do with a citation (which might enable those interested to observe the nature of the debate).
This, again, is basically a mini-introduction/summary: since the entire section is about this debate and has about 25 footnotes (35&ndash60 or so), I didn't see a need for an over-general reference at the beginning. If one is necessary, though, the Zhang (2007) article is a pretty good review (it's already cited a bunch of times throughout the section anyway). rʨanaɢtalk/contribs16:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Categories and prototypes
Several terms in this section have quote marks, e.g. "classical", "conditions", "criteria", "prototype" etc. It is not clear why this should be so.
Removed a few; kept "family resemblance" because it's Tai's wording and not mine, and it's not necessarily an everyday word. (Another option, though, would be to remove the quotes and link the term, since it's jargon from linguistic philosophy); kept "classical" because that word in particular is used in a lot of the sources to describe that theory, and I could imagine a reader somewhere down the road going "what's so 'classic' about this?", so I figured I should keep it in quotes to attribute it to its sources. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs
Neutralization
"It has been noted as early as the 1940s..." "It was noted..." And "as early as the 1940s" reads oddly in the context of languages, which typically develop over thousands of years. I think the whole sentence could do with a bit of treatment, and suggest: "It was noted in the 1940s that the use of 个 was increasing, with a tendency towards replacing specific classifiers with it."
While languages develop over thousands of years, they can change in the blink of an eye (look at how fast new slang words can become mainstream), so the reason I used "it was noted" is that this may have been a phenomenon that happened at that time—we have no way of knowing if this kind of neutralization happened in spoken language before Lu (I think that's who it was) wrote about it in the 40s, and thus I didn't want to suggest that it was a speech phenomenon that's been around for hundreds of years. As for "as early as", I had that in there to emphasize this is a speech style that has been around for decades, it's not just recent 'bad grammar' (and, also, to emphasize that this is still going on today--it wasn't just pointed out back then and stopped, but people still talk this way).
Variation in usage
Several sentences in this section (and others) begin "For example..." Readability is helped if there is some variety in expression; "An example of this is...", or "By way of illustration,..." are possibly ways of varying "For example..."
Removed two of them; I think "by way of illustration" is a bit awkward, but it's probably better than over-repeating "for example".
"...the lexical meaning of a noun." What is the "lexical" meaning (as distinct from the plain "meaning")?
I will complete my reading over the next couple of days or so. I would very much like to see some analysis from an editor who has some expertise in this area, to see if my instincts about the article quality are confirmed. Brianboulton (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments; I'll leave responses above (I find it easier to leave responses directly under the comments, but if you don't like this format let me know and I'll refactor myself). rʨanaɢtalk/contribs16:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm reiterating my support from last time, especially as I think the article has improved since then (the addition of further examples, etc.) As a student of Mandarin, I find this to be easily the best and most thorough treatment of a part of the Chinese language that is notoriously difficult to learn and to explain. I believe this article meets all of the FA criteria and is a remarkably useful discussion of a remarkably difficult subject. Ricardiana (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost none of the others are; Shie, T'sou, and maybe Allan are freely available, but the rest I got through my library or bought. Shie and Morev used to be linked in the article, but I decided it looks ugly to have just a few articles linked and the rest not. I think the readers who have enough interest to go beyond this article and read the papers themselves, are probably also the people who know how to find those papers (through a library, etc.). rʨanaɢtalk/contribs20:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Freely available papers should be linked; it is both an invitation to read the source and an easy way to gain time for the interested reader. Also, current references 24, 27, 35, 37, 52, 54, 55, etc. are lacking page number.
Those references are lacking page numbers on purpose, because for those parts the reference is the entire paper (ie, the whole paper, including the abstract, is about whatever thing is being discussed there in the prose). As for linking papers... I can dig up the links and add them, but I guess first I'd like to wait and see what other people looking have to say. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs21:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Ahrens paper, I'll try to take a closer look soon. Based on my skim of it, it looks like it won't have much new stuff to add to this article (not to imply that there's nothing new here—just that what is new is pretty technical, and not necessary to cover in a general encyclopedia article), but it can be an extra reference for the following sentence already there: Finally, a single word may have multiple count-classifiers that convey different meanings altogether—in fact, the choice of a classifier can even influence the meaning of a noun. (currently has footnote #59, so this paper could just be added to that footnote). rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 21:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Update It looks like it will also be useful for the section on verbal classifiers. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs21:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So for example the sentence "Likewise, while long things that are flexible (such as ropes) often take 条 (條) tiáo, long things that are rigid (such as sticks) take 根 gēn, unless they are also round (like pens or cigarettes), in which case in some dialects they take 枝 zhī." is referenced by two whole papers?
Pretty much; the Tai & Wang paper is "A semantic study of the classifier tiao", it's all about tiao. For the other paper (Tai 1994), I can get a specific page number, though. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs21:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about "and function (tools, vehicles, machines, etc.)"? Is that the subject of a whole paper?
I went through last night, checked, and added a few page numbers where they didn't seem inappropriate; the ones that are left without page numbers are, by my standard at least, just the ones that don't need them:
Tzeng, Chen & Hung 1991 (currently ref #56): citing a statement about aphasics' overuse of 个. That paper is entirely about aphasic classifier production and this is their main finding, it's discussed throughout the whole paper and is in the abstract.
Ahrens 1994 (currently ref #59): citing a statement about patterns that govern overuse of 个. Same thing, this is the main point of the paper and is in the abstract (if I cited page numbers for it, I would be citing something like a 15-page range anyway).
Tai 1994 (currently ref #62): citing a statement about how classifier-noun pairings vary across speakers. The bulk of this paper is an inventory of kinds of classifiers and how they are used in different speaker populations.
Li 2000 (currently used in ref #66 and #71): in all cases, used to cite statements about when and why speakers may choose to use a bare NP rather than a classifier phrase (or vice versa). In all instances, this is the main finding of the paper and is in the abstract.
Peyraube 1991 (currently used in ref #86): citing a statement that throughout history classifiers were not always mandatory and not always used. Like Tai 1994, this paper is basically an inventory of historical periods and, for the most part, examples of how little classifiers were used; trying to cite individual pages would result in citing almost every page of the paper anyway.
My final comments: Just a few points picked up in the later sections of the article:-
Purpose section
"...in many discourse settings, speakers are reported to avoid specific classifiers" - overelaborate? Could "many discourse settings" be "conversation"?
A conversation is one kind of discourse setting... but I agree this sentence is unnecessarily complicated. Shortened it to "in many settings, speakers avoid specific classifiers"... it's been reported so widely that I don't think we need to weasel out of it by saying "are reported", and in any case there are references. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs22:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The interjection "though" doesn't seem necessary
If you're referring to "Classifiers can be used stylistically, though"... I think I put that there to contrast it against the Greenburg-ian view that they serve no real purpose. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs22:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nor, a little later, does "in other words", which occurs twice in the final para (at least one should be dropped) and several times earlier in the article.
The sentence beginning "According to historical linguist" is impossibly long and complex. It should be simplified and broken up inti 2 or 3 shorter sentences.
General prose style - many sentences are over-lengthened by too much use of colons and semicolons. This makes following the already difficult prose even harder!
"...Li Jinxi treated classifiers just a type of noun that..." Something missing? Or replace "just" with "as"?
Oops, you're right, that was a typo. Fixed to "as just" (I like having the "just" in there because it helps express that he was not treating them as their own category.) rʨanaɢtalk/contribs22:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support: All issues raised by me have been addressed satisfactorily. The "qualified" simply means that I would like to see a comment from an expert in the subject that says "This is OK" or words to that effect. On the principle that no news is good news, if no such expert is forthcoming in a few days I'll remove the qualification anyway. I am really impressed by the effort that has gone into this article, and certainly see it as potentially among Wikipedia's best work. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think this is a very good reference on Chinese classifiers; the best that I know of. However, each time I give it a read I find issues (listed on the talk page), suggesting that much improvement is in order. Also I haven't had a chance to review the references fully, and I don't know of anyone who did the job other than Rjanag who put them up in the first place. When I return to Cambridge I will have access to all the sources and I will check every sentence for appropriate and correct citation; I will also verify that the sources have not been plagiarised. GeometryGirl (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will be getting to your next batch of talkpage comments this afternoon, hopefully. Please keep in mind, though, that when there is always more than one way to say something, and when an article has gone through as many rounds of copyediting as this has it's inevitable that editors will always find things that they wouldn't mind 'tweaking', which doesn't necessarily mean it's all bad writing—it just means that everyone has their own preferences about how things should be written. I am grateful for your continued comments because they have been helpful; at the same time, though, I just wanted to emphasize that this doesn't necessarily mean that massive "improvement" is needed... rather, it could just mean the article has reached a "quality plateau". Even in the most developed featured articles, everyone will still find phrases that they'd like changed here and there. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs12:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, support Perfection is probably not the goal at FAC after all. Rjanag is surprisingly efficient in dealing with issues brought up so I trust that - even with a star - the article will be open to extended improvement. (I'm also curious to see the potential effects of being on the main page.) GeometryGirl (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is great. There are a few things that need fine tuning, but then again, I think just about every article needs fine tuning. One thing that should be adressed though is the red links in the Classifier words subsection. Will there ever be a page on Lü Shuxiang? I doubt it, but someone found it needed to be a link. Same with the two books. This is aesthetic, but I happen to not like the look of red links, especially those that will never be linked to pages. Nezzadar (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the redlinks in that section, GeometryGirl and I only created redlinks for pages that have a corresponding article on zh-wiki. I don't know about Li Jinxi, but I do know Lü Shuxiang is a giant in the field of Chinese linguistics (his book is cited about as often, and on the same level, as Chao 1968 and Li & Thompson 1981) and ought to have an article here—that might even go onto my to-do list. Same for the books; these have corresponding articles on zh-wiki. To be honest, I am more concerned about the redlinked English names than the chinese ones (Ahrens, Erbaugh, Li and Tai (ok, those two are Chinese names, but English-language publications); while these people's papers are all widely cited in this topic and they all have made major contributions to the field, I'm not sure if they meet Wikipedia's standard for notability, and if I personally were going to start an article on any of them I don't know where I'd start. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs02:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lang, according to his biographers, was an enigma. The youngest archbishop in England in recent times, be began with great promise and large expectations, but in the end, by most accounts, he fell rather short – he himself judged his career a failure. Largely forgotten now, between the wars he was a major figure in British life, and touched many national and international events. Many thanks to the helping hands who monitored the article's progress from start-class, especially those who participated in the very thorough peer review.Brianboulton (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thoroughly reviewed the article's prose for consistency during the peer review and see no point in doing it a second time. Compelling article about an interesting character of whom I had only briefly heard. Only point I have remaining is that I'm not entirely clear as to whether the officiating clergy at his baptism was or was not his father, perhaps that could be made a little clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Later commentators have speculated... homosexual". I'd like to see something much better than "channel four" for this... elsewise, it's just gossip. Besides, you said "commentators" (plural). Ling.Nut (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you about the status of the Channel 4 source. The "Monarchy" television series and the books accompanying it are the work of Dr David Starkey, a respected academic historian, and cannot be dismissed as "just gossip". Other commentators have been more circumspect about Lang's sexuality. For example, the ODNB biog gives the text of Lang's emotional letter to Wilfred Parker without specifically mentioning sexual feelings, but the letter's inclusion looks like a nudge. Lockhart is even more evasive, but he was writing in 1948 when evasion on such matters was the order of the day. The reference to possible homosexual leanings is within a balanced paragraph. However, if you think the case is not made, I will be happy to withdraw this sentence - there are more important aspects of Lang's life to argue about.Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a number of sources that allege it, then fire away. But channel 4 doesn't say maybe, it says "yeah, he was gay." I'd love to log into their website and put a {{fact}} tag on such a bold, bald assertion. So.... if you can back it up further, please do so. If not, please do delete. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's this, from The Times 1 July 2003, which says: "There have been many closeted gay bishops who have served the Church well, from Cosmo Gordon Lang to..." Remember, I'm not making the claim that Lang was homosexual, I'm merely saying that some modern commentators have said he was, and we now have two quotes from what I consider reliable sources. I have also altered the text of the article slightly: "Some later commentators have suggested...". I think that is fair. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm poking about in whatever sources I can find, now... and am wondering if the Prayer Book controversy isn't a bit under-represented in the text...
Mmm, I saw McKibbin giving specific stats for the defeat of the Prayer Book in the House of Commons, second time around was 266-220 (p. 277, 18n). I dunno if I would call that "narrow", though it's certainly far less than a drubbing.. can we get more specific numbers?
"Lang knew the nature of Edward's social circle..." Yeah I know, the full details should be in the abdication crisis article, not this one. But this is unnecessarily cryptic.. a word or two of greater detail, perhaps? After all, it was prominent in his infamous speech, and there was apparently an editorial in the Times after Lang's speech which focused the brunt of its scorn on those social circles rather than the king.
Mmmm, I'm looking at Manwaring pp. 12-13, and I don't see any connection at all between Lang and the national Mission of Repentance and Hope. What did I miss?
The Mainwaring ref was specific to the failure of the Mission to make an impact. Lang's involvement, covered by Lockhart, has now been separately cited. Brianboulton (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Kent, John (1992). William Temple: Church, State and Society in Britain, 1880-1950, Cambridge University Press, says lang was "often unwell, and Temple, now Archbishop of York, had to stand in for him from time to time." It also says, "When he was not ill, Lang lacked energy." Did I overlook these health issues in the article?
I didn't think that Lang's health issues were that significant. He seems to have enjoyed good health apart from a period around 1929-32, shortly after his Canterbury appointment. I have added a line, with citations, about his illness in that period. Brianboulton (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to go now, but am becoming more & more convinced that the Prayer Book issue is under-represented in the body text and the lead. I think it was one of the two greatest issues in his time as archbishop; a political and religious struggle (albeit a far lesser one than say the Investiture controversy.) Ling.Nut (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was important, but in the context of an article about Lang's life, I think this issue is properly and adequately represented. Obviously there is plenty more to be said, but this topic is not the focus of this article. There does not appear to be a Wiki article on the Prayer Book revision controversies of the 1920s, but I believe that, or an article on recent Church of England History, would be a proper place for an extended discussion of the topic. Brianboulton (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re homosexuality: Your own sources said that he got hot 'n bothered over the young girls at a chocolate factory. That hardly seems homosexual per se.
Lang was an enigma, with contradictory traits (see Lockhart's summary of his complex character). My job is to record what has been said by reliable sources, on all aspects of his character, not to make judgements. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all done thinking about the Prayer Book controversy . I agree that perhaps it needs its own (brief) article, as you suggest. But even so, this is a key event in Lang's period as Cantuar. Its focus needs to be sharpened; its details collected together and highlighted. It shows his lack of leadership, as you noted far down in the article... It may show a lack of insight: one source said he "badly misread the establishment mood" of government. It shows the political currents (Liberal vs. Labour; see Lang's oft-cited quote about the coal mining issue) and the religious currents (staunch Protestant laity vs. Catholic-wannabe church leaders). ...as you noted, it passed through the religious decision process with overwhelming support... Far more was at stake than simply a prayer book, it was a significant move away from mainstream Protestantism... The defeat of the revision apparently led to discouragement among many clergy, who saw it as an establishmentarian smackdown. Etc. I'm actually not talking about a huge rewrite here. These issues just need to be explained well—though currently they are not.
I am a bit puzzled by your analysis. You say the Prayer Book controversy is "a key event in Lang's period as Cantuar", but in fact the House of Commons rejections came before Lang ascended to Canterbury. He thereupon made it a non-issue, which it remained until after his – and his successor's – departure. Yes, he was criticized for this lack of leadership by Bishop Bell, but others considered his inactivity a wise move which faclitated an eventual solution. In the controversy itself, up to 1928, Lang's role was that of a lieutenant to Archbishop Davidson; as Lockhart says, "the story belongs to Davidson rather than Lang". It would be possible to include a little more material, about Lang's influence is bringing about the overwhelming Church vote in favour, or about his misreading of the House of Commons situation, but it would not be right to elevate his role above that of loyal supporter of his senior Archbishop. If Lang's "oft-cited quote" is the one about a fair day's work and a fair day's wage, this was made in 1912, outside the time frame of the Prayer Book controversy and, I would have thought, with no relevance to it. I have no quarrel with your other assertions, but they are basically not about Lang. Anything added to the article in this respect must focus on his role. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two broad questions that I think were not answered adequately: First, why was his rise so meteoric? Second, and at the same time both more interesting and more important, why was he so ineffectual after he became Cantuar? Ling.Nut (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first question cannot be answered objectively. Lang wasn't (like Temple or Davidson) the son or son-in-law of an Archbishop, nor was he nurtured in the Church of England; he was a Scots Presbyterian. He wasn't wealthy, had no family influence, and how he rose so quickly is a matter of conjecture. Was he clever, lucky or both? As far as I can within the principle of NPOV, I have marshalled the facts, but the question remains open. As to the second question, "ineffectual" is your word; the general consensus is softer, that he could have done more than he did, but I have not seen him described as ineffectual. Why he fell short of expectations is a matter about which writers have speculated, and which I believe I have summarised in the Assessment section. I am still studying sources for new material that can shed more light on this complicated life. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see several sentences that begin In YYYY or In Month YYYY without a comma after them. I even see "On 24 May 1891" without a succeeding comma. I believe this is grammatically incorrect.
There are different conventions for comma usage between American and British English. Both conventions are grammatically correct. In Brit Eng, commas don't have to follow dates, unless the date is followed by a subordinate clause. Thus: "On 20 July he went to school for the first time" needs no comma. "On 20 July, after eating breakfast, he went..." etc would require a comma.
also "During these years" comma.; "Of his life at that time" comma.
With Brit Eng, commas are not necessary in these instances.
What is a prelate?
A senior priest - now linked.
practise law - practice not practise.
No, "practise" is a correct verb form, though not I think used in American Eng.
The thought persisted and one Sunday evening in the spring of 1889, after a visit to the theological college at Cuddesdon, Lang attended evening service at the Cuddesdon parish church. is runon without a comma after persisted.
"These appointments reflected his growing reputation, and recognised his successful ministry in working-class parishes." has an ungrammatical comma that needs to be removed as does "divided, between his work in the Stepney region and his duties at St Paul's".
First example: it's not ungammatical, and the comma is fine. Second example: the comma is legitimate, but the sentence reads better without it, so removed.
As I understand it conjoining phrases with a comma and a conjunction in this manner connotes that the second phrase is an independent clause having its own subject, which is not the case here and why I believe the comma should be removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of that rule of grammar, but it sounds pretty impressive. The comma can go.
In this case: "He upheld the right of the Church to refuse the remarriage of divorced persons within its buildings,[91] but did not directly oppose A.P. Herbert's Matrimonial Causes Bill of 1937, which liberalised the divorce laws—Lang believed "it was no longer possible to impose the full Christian standard by law on a largely non-Christian population."", you need the comma for the purpose an anchor for the citation so just give the second clause a subject by changing it to "but he did not directly..."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
badly housed??? maybe living in modest or rundown accomodations. Living on the streets. Something more professional is needed here.
I don't see why "badly housed" is unprofessional (or worth three query marks!). But I've extended it to: "housed in overcrowded and insanitary conditions."
"Lang avoided continuation of the 1928 Prayer Book controversy by allowing it to lapse, after authorising a statement permitting use of the proposed Book locally if the parochial church council gave approval." seems to be using a comma unnecesarily to set off a prepositional phrase.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's peers, not titles, that are created. You haven't explained your difficulty with this sentence, so I don't know what your problem is. However, I have reworded the sentence in the text, which should resove any remaining uncertainties. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should use {{Inflation}} so that you don't have to update the currency conversion (£1 million in 2009 terms) every year. See Fountain_of_Time#Planning where I have used it.
What is the basis of calculation in this template, and how should its use be cited? Personally I find it a bit annoying, in that for example £1,500 converts as £50,101, an unnecessarily fussy level of detail. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to start off with his full name here (without "William") and insert at least the year of birth as well. Consider the lede and the main text as two separate articles and this should become clear.
I see, might I suggest changing the last three words to "... occasionally played football;" or "... played the occasional game of football;"? Jappalang (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"... met some of the leading academics .... Long afterwards Lang commented on the inability of some of these eminent figures to handle "the Scottish boors who formed a large part of their classes"."
This was a bit confusing to me till I read "Among his various tutors ..." in the later sentence. The "met ... leading academics" part led me to think that some of them might have been fellow students.
"In 1881 Lang made his first trip ... Edwin Booth in Othello. Later that year he travelled to Cambridge to stay with a friend who was studying there."
What is the point of chronicling young Lang's adventures?
It's the footy thing – trying to indicate that Lang had a range of interests and wasn't just the class swot. If you think that the references to Liddon, parliament and the theatre are distracting, I can remove them, as they aren't essential to the article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting, adds a bit of flavour to the account of Lang's youth. I am just wondering if it had wandered too much off the point (trivial). It is not really a big opposable issue. Jappalang (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise: leave in his visits to to St Pauls & parliament, since they have slight bearing on his future career. Drop the theatre as relatively trivial. Does that satisfy? Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While Demosthenes should be familiar to those in the literary and political circles, the common reader might be ignorant of his significance at first glance (I did not know of his name and reputation till I read Ender's Game...). I think Demosthenes's credential should be made more obvious here (in part contributing to the opinion of Lang's oratory prowess). Perhaps, "... to that of Ancient Greek statesman, Demosthenes."
"He rejected a tempting offer of the chaplaincy of All Souls, as he wanted to be "up and doing" in a tough parish."
Was All Souls some sort of "soft and cushy" parish?
All Souls (as stated in last line of previous section) is an Oxford college, so the tempting offer was for the chaplaincy of a college, to which he had been elected a Fellow. It would indeed have been a cushy number, but he rejected it. Brianboulton (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, okay, I was looking to more details of what would be a "tough" parish in those days, but the current wording is nothing opposable. Jappalang (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you indicate that your concern here is resolved, or otherwise clarify any outstanding issue with this point?
"As well as his parish duties,—Lang acted temporarily as Principal of the Clergy School,—he was chaplain to Leeds Infirmary and took charge of a men's club of around a hundred members."
The things he did in addition to his normal parish duties included the temporary principalship of the school, the infirmary chaplaincy and the men's club - all were extracurricular to his everyday parish work. I have slightly reworded, to make this clearer. Brianboulton (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing your clarification, my actual issue (which I thought to solve as above) arises from the placement of "Lang acted temporarily as Principal of the Clergy School" between "In addition to/As well as his parish duties," and "(he) was chaplain to Leeds Infirmary ...". In this case, perhaps the original sentence with a fullstop substituting the comma after "Clergy School" would solve the issue? Jappalang (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't understand what the "issue" is. The sentence now reads: "In addition to his normal parish duties, Lang acted temporarily as Principal of the Clergy School, was chaplain to Leeds Infirmary, and took charge of a men's club of around a hundred members." I am simply listing three things he did in addition to his normal parish duties. As this is surely clear, why does the sentence need changing? Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was grammatical, pertaining to pronouns. From the first sentence, I saw "As well as his ..., Lang acted ..., he was ... .", which seemed weird to me. On re-reading your amendment, it is resolved: "In addition to his ..., Lang acted ..., was ..., and took charge ... ." Sorry for my confused state above. Jappalang (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Portsea
"Lang may have realised that he was destined for high office; he is reported to have practised the episcopal signature "Cosmo Cantuar" during a relaxed discussion with his curates."
What is an "episcopal signature"? How does practising "Cosmo Cantaur" show he knew he was destined for high office?
I've dropped the "episcopal", and inserted a parenthetical explanatory note. This is an oft-told story of Lang, prematurely practising the signature he would use as Archbishop of Canterbury. It shows that the possibility of high office had entered his mind. Note that I have stood away slightly from the story - "may have realised", "is reported to have"; it's best to be noncommital. Brianboulton (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my ignorance, but I still have questions over "signature". My understanding of the term is a stylised handwriting of one's name. By "practised the signature ... during a relaxed discussion with his curates", does it mean he signed himself off on paper with "Cantaur" to his name in front of his curates? Jappalang (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When did he become a Royal Chaplain or are all Honorary Chaplains to the Queen Royal Chaplains as well?
Sorry, I overlooked this. The term "Royal Chaplain" was my unofficial shorthand for Honorary Chaplain to the Queen. I have revised the sentence and ropped the term Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stepney
"Lang took as his personal assistant ... Dick Sheppard, who became a close friend and confidante. HeSheppard was eventually ordained,"
"Temple observed that, in contrast to the Bishop of London's sermons, with Lang the pleasure was intellectual rather than emotional, but "I can remember all his points, just because their connexion is inevitable.... And for me, there is no doubt that this is the more edifying by far.""
Suggestion: "Temple observed that, in contrast to the Bishop of London's sermons, listening to Lang brought on an intellectual rather than emotional pleasure: "I can remember all his points, just because their connexion is inevitable.... And for me, there is no doubt that this is the more edifying by far.""
"On the issue of age, the Church Times believed it was the deliberate choice ofthat Asquith todeliberately recommended the youngest bishop available, after the PMhe had endured ..."
"... declaring that the Munich Agreement of September 1938 was due to/by the "Hand of God.""?
I've looked again, and I wasn't using the "Hand of God" quote correctly. So I've changed the text. Lang called for a day of thanksgiving for the "sudden lifting of the cloud". That is more accurate.
Abdication crisis
"... with the American divorcée Wallis Simpson ..."
This and the following sentences ("... the king intended to marry Mrs. Simpson either before or shortly after his impending coronation.") seem to indicate that Mrs Simpson was divorced at the time of Edward VIII's accession. That is wrong. She was divorced from Spencer but married to Simpson (and still married in 1936). Mrs Simpson/Spencer's status could probably be better explained here.
"after sitting for Sir William Orpen in 1924, Lang remarked to Bishop Hensley Henson of Durham that the portrait showed him as "proud, prelatical and pompous." Henson's reply was "To which of these epithets does Your Grace take exception?""
I love this sentence, but is this a factual anecdote? If not, it would be better to establish the context of this quote.
Widely quoted, and believed factual, but the story is never pinned down to a specific time and place, nor is it clear who witnessed the exchange. So, I have inserted a couple of caveats. No article on Lang would be complete, I believe, without this line. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Some commentators have suggested that Lang was a repressed homosexual."
It should be expounded (briefly if it is a cursory view) on why these commentators hold such suggestions. Leaving it as a single sentence without reason seems to be a bit on the gossip side of things.
If Starkey and Gove were ordinary newspaper journalists, the "gossip" implication might stick. But they are serious writers who have each made their suggestions in unsensationalist contexts. Neither is specific as to why they hold their views, which I have presented cautiously and in the context of other information about Lang's possible sexual tendencies. Lang was a public figure and things were and will be said about him, by responsible commentators. I think that the "comprehensive" criterion requires me to report such remarks, without in any way endorsing them. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They might be serious writers, but it is curious how such an allegation can come about without basis. It seems Ling.Nut (above) shares a similar concern as well. Basically, information is put forth that shows Lang could have carnal thoughts towards women, but nothing backs up the homosexual opinion. Are there no books or newspaper articles that stated such a revelation or assertion with the reasons why? If not, and if the statement is to stay, then I think the authors of those views should be held accountable, i.e. we should explicitly attribute the statement to them, such as "Years after Lang's death, his sexual orientation was questioned. Journalist Michael Gove and Channel 4 television station suggested that Lang was a repressed homosexual." Jappalang (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent idea. I have incorporated it, but have reordered the paragraph so that the "suggestion" no longer hangs fire at the end, where it tended to look like an accusation. The sense of the paragraph now is: "He led a celibate life; people have suggested he was a closet homosexual, and he certainly had emotional friendships with male colleagues; however he enjoyed women's company and found them attractive." I think that is fair; it leaves nothing out, without placing emphasis on any one aspect. See what you think (also Ling Nut comment below). Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography
"... including a novel of the 1745 risingJocobite Risings in 1745."
There are two "the King". I believe it (king) is lowercase when not used as a title.
I have lower-cased the first. The second is in a quotation and has to stay as it is. 16:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Images
All images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed.
Some of the above are just suggestions (my prose sucks), so... Since my knowledge about the Archibishop of Canterbury is basically restricted to jokes about Henry II's attitude, I am commenting on what appears to be lacking from the viewpoint of a reader fresh to the subject. Looking forward to support once the above are addressed. Jappalang (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review. I have dealt with about half your points, but other duties are calling. I'll be back later to deal with the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Struck most of it, but there are still a few that requires additional attention (the singular sentence about his sexual orientation is still of concern). Jappalang (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support:(outdented) As what I perceived were issues have been resolved, there is nothing to stop me from throwing my support behind Brian's latest masterpiece. Jappalang (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody got rid of this turbulent priest... he just left on his own (the third one to do so, it seems). Should that factoid be included in the article? It might be trivial (no telling how many more Archbishops of Canterbury would retire rather than die in office), so its exclusion would not affect my support. Jappalang (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The homosexual bit is much, much better. It no longer leaves so many open questions, which previously gave it almost the air of a swipe at his character.
I saw at least one quote (dig it up tomorrow) which said the Prayer Bok thing made Lang more conservative (in the general sense). I think this should go in he article and the lead. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've watched the changes Brian has made to this article from the beginning (I did add some extra material and refs jsut before he started his revamp, bu the present article is basically "his", though I did do a bit of typo spotting for him along the way), and I beleive it now meets the criteria.
Comments, on the sexuality issue, I don't think this is overstated (though I do wonder if the only basis that the suggestions have been made on is anglo-catholic plus celibate = "must be gay"). On the prayerbook revision, the article as it stands gives similar weight to the issue as does the ODNB article (the only one of the major sources which is readily available to me). David Underdown (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and it should be noted that your typo-spotting and intermittent suggestions during the revamp were valuable, and much appeciated. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support my issue is addressed and nicely Comment I have replaced the last sentence in the lead, which is unreferenced with the last sentence in the Assessment section which seems to be more NPOV and is referenced. Please let me know if you agree, otherwise I support this article's nomination for FAC. Thanks, NancyHeisetalk16:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but we can't have the exact same sentences ending both the lead and the Assessment section. I have now included a shorter version of the concluding assessment as the final lead sentences. I believe that I have addressed your concern that the lead previously did not wholly reflect the consensus view on Lang's career; I think it now does. Also, it is not necessary to cite lead infomation, provided the material is referenced in the main text. I am sorry if you feel you cannot support the article, but I really do not want to amend the text further on this point. Brianboulton (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I reviewed the article earlier and had no quibbles. I did notice the bit about the EB, but that's not enough to hold back my support. Ealdgyth - Talk23:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I added some comments at peer review; I was mightily impressed with the article then, and the fine tuning arising from the above comments has improved it still further. Tim riley (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the FA criteria. It's been nominated before, but it's changed so much since then that I don't think they matter. Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Throughout the article I made minor changes, such as word choice or changing the publication "history" section to publication background.
Just a couple other concerns:
When Ravenloft' was released, each Dungeons & Dragons module was marked with an alphanumeric code indicating the series to which it belonged.[9]. - what is with the extra marking?
In 2004, on the 30th anniversary of the Dungeons & Dragons game, Dungeon magazine ranked the module as the second greatest Dungeons & Dragons adventure of all time—behind only Queen of the Spiders. - cite
Judge Clark Peterson single out the maps and Strahd for praise, saying the vampire is "perhaps on of the best villains of all time". - cite, after a quote
In the July 1984 issue of White Dwarf magazine, on a scale of 1 to 10, the module was given 9 for presentation, 9 for playability, 8 for enjoyment, 6 for skill, 6 for complexity, 8 out of 10 overall. - cite
It was likened to a Hammer horror production and praised as enjoyable, although the reviewer said the game's puns were tedious and detracted from the spooky atmosphere. - cite
Basically, "When Strahd is destroyed, the adventure ends." is not correct. The adventure can also end when every player character has died (darn traps and natural "1"s!!!). An imaginative DM might create a post-Strahd's-destruction scenario to further flesh out the session (celebrating at the village, finding more mysteries in the castle that lead to other adventures, etc). Furthermore, a layman might interprete the sentence to be "You cannot stop the game until Strahd has been destroyed." My suggestion would be "The main objective of the game is to destroy Count Strahd." Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"They play-tested it every Halloween for five years ..."
Between the two of them? Did they not play Dragonlance with friends (some of whom were notable TSR employees as well) before putting it to paper? Is it the same case here?
"When Ravenloft was released, eachEach Dungeons & Dragons module was marked with an alphanumeric code indicating the series to which it belonged."
Compare to "When the war ended, buntings were put up at every high location in the city." Pay attention to the spatial references. The modules were numbered that way before Ravenloft was released.
According to the cited FAQ, they were marked that way up through late 1994. Not sure how to word that so I went with "At the time of Ravenloft's release..." BOZ (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Strahd had fallen in love with a young girl, ... and Strahd found that he had become a vampire."
This whole chunk seems more suited to Plot.
"... to kill the vampire at the end of the adventure, despite having the Sunsword, he refused, and his companions were forced to complete the task."
It seems that the Sunsword is not required to kill Strahd... so his refusal seems somewhat non sequitur to his possession of the weapon.
"... by introducing a combination monster/character, with the abilities of a vampire and a magic-user."
Rather confusing sentence to a layman, might be clunky to those in the know. Suggestion: "... by introducing a monster with the abilities of a player character class, that is a vampire magic-user."
"Although Ravenloft II is credited to the Hickmans, Tracy Hickman left TSR before the module was complete."
"Credited to the Hickmans", so what happened to Laura?
The sentence reads strange; first part talks about two, the second only one. Since no reliable sources chronicled the fate of Laura, it would be better to change the focus of the sentence entirely to one: "Although Tracy Hickman was credited in Ravenloft II, he had left TSR before the module was completed." Jappalang (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite these problems, he said it included "Lots of monsters, plenty of roleplaying, lots of offstage action, items and crucial information to be gathered, and topped off with an excellent ending. What more could you ask? Excellent, highly recommended.""
Highly promotional tone, despite the quotation marks. It can be trimmed to "Despite these problems, he highly recommended it for "lots of monsters, plenty of roleplaying, lots of offstage action, items and crucial information to be gathered, and [...] an excellent ending.""
Adaptations
"...expanded,;with Ravenloft becomingis now a demiplane ..."
"Judge Bill Slavicsek", "judge Andy Collins", "Judge Clark Peterson", "Judge John Rateliff"
Besides repetitious, I would prefer to have their credentials stated. "Judge" is no means of knowing why they are experts in the field.
"... on a scale of 1 to 10, the module was given 9 for presentation, 9 for playability, 8 for enjoyment, 6 for skill, 6 for complexity, 8 out of 10 overall."
I am not entirely certain ratings are encyclopaedic.
The sentence this fragment appears in should be re-written. The reviewer is saying that the typical monsters of D&D (e.g. goblins, orcs, etc) do not fit in a gothic horror atmosphere. "Normal D&D monsters" means, to me, all the monsters in the game, unmodified in any manner.
Images
Images are appropriately licensed; the use of the sole non-free image is justified by its fair-use rationale.
I've fixed everything that BOZ didn't get to except a few things.diff
I'm not sure what you meant by "96-hour non-stop gaming session?"
I changed it to "They play-tested the adventure with a group of players each Halloween" but I'll have to check the source (which I don't have handy right now) to make sure. I think it's common sense that it wasn't just the two of them.
"Strahd had fallen in love with a young girl, ... and Strahd found that he had become a vampire." I put it in plot. Although that info is also in the module, I got my summary from Hickman's summary in another source, so I cited that. The problem is that it's three sentences in the middle of the plot section, so I'm not sure if I should cite each sentence, or what. I currently just cited the end of it, but then it's not clear where it began.
"Credited to the Hickmans" I'm pretty sure she never worked there other than with her husband, but the source doesn't say.
The Judge part. I've made sure that each has a wikilink now. I think the source (which I don't have handy) mentions there credentials, so I'll add that soon and not use judge so much.
I fixed the judges thing. The source doesn't say much about who exactly play tested it. I can leave it with "a group of players" or I can go back to how it was earlier if you think that's OR. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your attempt made me laugh, but belatedly. I fixed the 96 hour ( ;-) ) problem.[50]
"Although Ravenloft II is credited to the Hickmans, Tracy Hickman left TSR before the module was complete" I've looked for sources on when Laura left TSR and why to add in. No luck. Her last work for TSR seems to be 1986, the same year as House of Strahd, but that's as close as not committing OR as I can come (without a better source), and I think it's too close.
Comment on sources: I just looked through the references. Out of 29 sources used, 21 are in no small way affiliated with the publishers of the module or the authors themselves... While Ravenloft is no doubt notable (as evident from third-party sources on D&D), the large use of primary sources might be of concern. This could be understandable, as RPGs are quite a niche low-profile (unless we get into those "products of evil" media condemnations) products. Jappalang (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really disagree. But, as you say, there aren't a ton of independent sources. I basically grabbed all the RSs I could, regardless of independence. I can reduce the number of non-independent sources (although it would make the article smaller), but I don't have a lot of options for increasing the independent ones. There is a review of it in an issue of The Space Gamer #72, which I don't have. I'm not sure how to get it, either. I think it's pretty rare. Even with it, it won't change the ratio that much, and it's info would go in the Reception section, which is one of the few balanced sections at the moment. So, I'm not sure what to do. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the last unstruck item brought up by Jappalang, here is the exact quote from the source: "The House on Gryphon Hill was the final project Hickman worked on before he left TSR to pursue a career as a freelance novelist in the wake of the success of the Hickman-Weis Dragonlance novels, and he didn’t manage to finish it before he left. Hence, although Tracy and Laura Hickman are credited for their outline and having come up with the overall plot for the adventure, most of the actual writing was done by a hastily assembled crack team of TSR designers in order to meet the rapidly approaching release date" BOZ (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind making the change, but I'd like to hear what you think now, in case you feel differently, Jappalang. Thanks for this very detailed review. It's a lot of fun. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (outdent): After resolving the above, I am putting my support for this article. The quality of the prose is not judged (as it is not my forte), but I believe this article is as comprehensive as it can be with the sources available, putting forth a summarized neutral view of the subject, and its image use is compliant with policies and guidelines. Jappalang (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Reviewed this at the last FAC, which I don't remember that well. Didn't find too much in a full reading; just the points below:
Plot: "The next two cards determine the locations of Straud and the Tome of Straud. The Tome of Straud...". Notice the repetition from sentence to sentence? The best solution is to merge the two sentences, as the resulting sentence will have good length and flow.
"and made a pact with evil powers in order to live forever." Tiny bit of wordiness that can easily be removed. I saw another one of these later in the Ravenloft II section.
I assume DM is the Dungeon Master? That briefly confused me. Might be a good idea to either spell it out or include a parenthetical abbraviation on the first use.
Publication background: "It consisted of a 32-page book, with seperate maps detailing game locations." The with+-ing sentence structure is something FAC prose reviewers have worked hard to reduce, since it is a generally awkward structure. Fortunately, a fix here is easy: "maps that detailed" or "maps which detailed".
Tracy and Laura Curtis...". The linked article implies that this is incorrect, and should either be "Tracy and Laura Hickman" or "Tracy Hickman and Laura Curtis".
Support – Looks like a pretty good one to me. I do wish there were a few more secondary sources, but this is not the sort of thing that would have been widely discussed in the general media at the time. I'm confident that the best avaliable sources are in here. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support(moral or otherwise as part-time WP D&D member) - I have overseen this article develop and tweaked it here and there, but I feel it now fulfils criteria WRT prose and comprehensiveness. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:43, 5 September 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.
Hello! I'm JKBrooks85. You might remember me from such FACs as 2009 Orange Bowl and Rampart Dam, but today I'd like to introduce you to something a little different. This is an article about the Yukon Quest, an annual 1,000-mile sled dog race from Fairbanks, Alaska to Whitehorse, Yukon. This is the third nomination for this article, and in order to ensure this time will be successful, I had the help of a number of superb editors in preparing the article. Maralia and Hoary did a complete copy edit, and Hoary also did a great deal of trimming to streamline the prose. Tony1, Dr. Blofeld, and Laser brain gave their nods to the article as well, and I hope you'll do the same. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please don't hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Seems like a very good article, although the endorsement doesn't quench my prose regime! I have a couple of issues:
Lead:
"drop dogs at checkpoints and dog drops". You have "drop dogs" and "dog drops". Could "drop dogs" be replaced by "leave dogs" or similar, as the two are so close it could lead to confusion (as it did for me). Also I think "dog drops" needs to be put in quotation marks.
Changed first "drop" to "leave". I'm unsure about adding quote marks around the dog drops, since the term appears so much in the rest of the article and might need to be changed at other mentions. ... For consistency's sake, I think it might work better as is.
" "The statement at the bottom on Yukon Quest International, could that be incorporated into the first paragraph? It looks and reads awkwardly where it is, and I'm against such separation from main paragraphs.
I've folded it into the preceding paragraph. Putting it in the top paragraph might cause confusion, since the second paragraph references "the competition", and that sentence refers to two additional races.
History:
The text before Origins feels so strained and unnecessary. It needs to be given some purpose or removed.
Done. I don't like leading a section with a sub-section header, so I've also deleted the "origins" subsection header.
Support. Pending the addressing of reviewers' comments. I was encouraging and believed this should be worked up to FA standard, but did not give a blanket endorsement. All the same, I think this is now pretty well-written; I do hope it succeeds. A few things towards the top:
Maybe there's a good reason not to convert "1000-mile" to metrics at the top? It's "1016 miles or more" below; bit confusing. Is it billed as "1000-mile"? If not, you might consider the less precise "long-distance", given that the exact minimum is provided further down in the lead.
Yeah, the 1,000-mile part is actually part of the official name. I bolded it up top on first reference to bring that out ... is there another way that would work better?
80 km/h winds? Child's play, seriously.
"On February 25, 1984, 26 racers"—good case for spelling out 26.
Because of the introductory phrase?
"first-place prize"—couldn't be just "first prize"?
Works for me.
... Alaska, Alaska ...
Reworded and shortened.
I've lashed out and made the image sizes more generous. The "eastern slope" and the one under it now probably need to go a little up. Change the sizes if you don't like the resizing, but most of the pics are good and contain a lot of detail the readers will want to see. The map and "Petty crossings" are still a bit on the small side, I think. Tony(talk)11:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support This is just about there, my concern though is that in places I feel it could be made more concise still and given another copyedit. Also maybe you could reduce some of red links by starting new articles?Himalayan Explorer12:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC) (formerly Blofeld)[reply]
Comment. Alt text is done andthat is present is mostly very good; thanks. However, the alt text for the map File:2009 Yukon Quest map.svg doesn't convey the gist of the useful visual info in that map. It should mention the general location, direction, and major highlights of the map (no need to list all the cities; that's too much detail). Alt text is missing for File:Yukon Quest participants graph.svg (please give gist of what that graph says, rather than irrelevant visual detail such as color or whether it's a line graph) and for File:White Pass RR station.jpg.Eubulides (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional support – Supported the first time, abstained the second time, and am coming back on the support side now. I read through the lead, which looks good, but have gone no further yet; hence the provisional. I'll probably end up making any needed fixes myself because I'm in a time-saving mode at the moment. When I finish going through it, I plan on fully supporting. Shouldn't take too long, given that it was a great article before the copy-editing. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though with two major dislaimers: (i) I'm ignorant of the subject, (ii) some of the rephrasing is my own. So all in all my opinion is probably worthless. Still, I believe I can say that the article is most interesting and informative, scrupulously sourced (wherever I've checked), and well illustrated. (As somebody who has "frozen" during mere hour-long motorcyle rides in temperatures above freezing, I'd still rather like to know how the participants protect themselves against extensive frostbite in that vile-sounding combination of wind chill and long hours; but perhaps this will be more obvious to other readers.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with the mild disclaimer that I copyedited this fairly extensively before FAC. I have reviewed the changes since, and I'm confident it meets the criteria. Maralia (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On my browser, there are lots of image layout issues. There's a big white space in "Pre-race preparation", another in "Two Rivers to Fairbanks", and there are several left-aligned images under third-level headings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 6 September 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 the FA criteria. The fifth, and perhaps final (though I am considering an article on the Alger Hiss imbroglio) in my Nixon series, it covers Nixon's first election campaign. It's a GA, in which our WP Nixon expert, Happyme22 was asked for a second opinion by the reviewer and endorsed the GA, and received a peer review by Brianboulton, who was favorable (favourable, in his case) about the article. Most of the photos were taken by me on a visit to California earlier in the summer, at which I also visited three archives to obtain the official Statements of Vote and seek other appropriate sources (such as newspaper clippings from 1946 not available online) that would help this article. I think it's ready to go.Wehwalt (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Good article; interesting read. The only thing I noticed is the last source (1946 election results) is missing publisher, date etc. Dave (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's now fixed. I have the official California statement of vote too, but better to have an online ref there, I think. Thanks for the praise!--Wehwalt (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't that many anyway, someone could do it manually in very little time I suspect. This is an article mostly from offline sources. Thanks Ealdgyth!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked from the top down to the start of "Background".
Comma required after "Nixon" in the opening para.
Bit clunky, or at least unnecessarily "marked" with bumps: "which would, almost a quarter century later, lead to the White House". Consider "which would lead to the White House almost a quarter century later."
Why is "World War II" linked? Is it an obscure event that even a few readers have never heard of?
"and to connect" might be better than "and successfully connect", given that the previous "to" is way back and that to connect is to connect.
Perhaps "in the election" rather than "in November", since non-US readers will be unfamiliar with the constitutional setting of the ?first Tuesday in November for elections for all levels of government.
"explanations have been made" – Consider "put forward" or "proposed" or "considered". "ranging" might be dropped.
"such errors" doesn't work—it's plural, but refers back by comparison to a singular "campaign". It's also a little laboured, I think. Could you express the opposite in substantive terms? "while Nixon ran a skilled .... ".
"encompassing such (at the time) small towns as"—clunky; perhaps "at the time encompassing such small towns as"?
This demonstrates the need for fresh eyes to copy-edit throughout. Two things that might be watched are comma usage and the awkward placement of phrases in the middle of sentences. Tony(talk)10:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll start looking for someone to look at the article, but I may await additional comments so as to consolidate things, and perhaps one of the reviewers will be minded to do some work. Since this article is almost entirely my writing, it therefore displays my writing quirks. As for the White House sentence, I think it important that the sentence end with the words "White House", I'll look at alternative phrasings. Otherwise some of the effect is lost.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made most of the specific changes Tony noted. I struck the parenthetical (at the time), because doing it the way he suggested would lead to an ambiguity, the reader could see it as a statement that the 12th district no longer includes any of those towns, which is actually true, since the present 12th district is up by San Francisco, but that's not the point that is trying to be made. I delinked World War II and also Washington D.C. All other comments were acted upon, and I'm seeing about getting a fresh set of eyes.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"which almost half a century later would lead to the White House.", perhaps? Reviewers are under no obligation to edit nominations—in fact, I would discourage more than a little of that, since we are so short of reviewers. Unfortunately, we are reduced to providing examples from small portions, then returning to re-assess; or at least that is how I try to cover as many nominations as possible. Quirks? Not sure about that unless the readers are likely to find them easy to get; what is most important is a smooth read. Tony(talk)11:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An excellent and balanced article, both well-written and well-sourced. I have only a couple of suggestions:
Maybe add a picture of Voorhis?
In the South Pasadena debate, you write that Hoeppel asked one question -- do you know what the question was? It's not crucial to the article, but it might be interesting to the reader. Coemgenus14:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unhappily, I have not been able to find a free use picture of Voorhis. That's why I fell with glad cries on the license plate attachment at the Nixon Museum which includes a picture of Voorhis (figuratively, it was behind glass), and I photographed that, it's three dimensional and for public display, perfect free use! As for Hoeppel's question, the actual question is not in any source I've been able to find, but it, according to Bullock, had to do with a group in the Spanish Civil War that Voorhis had supported (I gather, though Bullock is imprecise, on the losing side) which was by 1946 believed to be Communist Front. Bullock describes the question as "tricky". Bullock does not say what Voorhis said in response. Gellman doesn't mention it. Morris mentions it, using similar language, and cites to Bullock. I'd be open to putting it in a footnote. Let me know what you think.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's too bad about the picture. That's one of the difficulties of writing about post-1923 figures. As to the question, if it's not that relevant, maybe it's best left out, or relegated to a footnote. I have the Gellman book, which doesn't list it, so I was curious. Anyway, great article -- good luck with the FA nom! Coemgenus16:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good news about Prof. Gellman. The archivist at the Nixon Library told me he's almost ready to go with the second part of his projected three part bio of Nixon. He was out sick for quite a while. Thanks for the support!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments, leaning to support: I was involved in the peer review, and most of the substantive issues I raised there have been addressed. In general this is an excellent addition to the growing collection of early Nixon articles, and Wehwalt is to be commended for the depth of his research and for his narrative abilities. I mentioned at the review that the prose might need some final polishing, and that still appears to be the case. I have fixed a couple or so minor glitches; here are a few more to be looked at:-
Lead
I suggest: "First elected to Congress in 1936, Voorhis..."
Also, "For the 1946 contest, Republicans sought a candidate..."
I'd avoid the repetition in the third paragraph by saying: "...while Voorhis did not return from Washington D.C. until..."
...and in the last paragraph, rather than repeat "defeat of Voorhis", I would simply refer to Nixon's "victory".
"Voorhis was re-elected by 13,000 votes in 1942"; without knowledge of the total vote, this doesn't tell us whether the 1942 election was close or a walkover. Could "a majority of x%" be added in?
Just a thought: are military school principals by definition weak candidates? Otherwise, in regard to 1940, it might be appropriate to say something like "he faced a military school principal with no political experience" - or some such.
After digging through Bullock, I find he says that the principal, Capt. Irwin Minger "was an unknown". I'll give him the benefit of the down and call him "little-known".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Search for a candidate
"Tammany Hall" will mean nothing to the great majority of non-American readers (except for the odd geek like me who did an American politics option). Although the term occurs within a quote, this is, I think, an occasion when a wikilink inside a quotation would be helpful.
I appreciate the concern to avoid repeating Nixon's name, but calling him "the naval officer" is too anonymous. There are other repetitions in these two sentences which in my view are equally distracting. Thus, I would go for: "When the Committee met on November 28, Nixon received over two-thirds of the vote, which was quickly made unanimous. Chairman Roy Day immediately notified the victor of the Committee's endorsement."
Fair enough. You've read my prior FACs when I've been nailed for rep of the name of the subject. I've changed that and also changed two other allusions to Nixon to his name and hopefully the wind won't hit me from the other side.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest instead of "The naval officer was a virtual unknown..." say "The candidate was a virtual unknown..."
"In mid-March, Nixon was approached by former congressman Hoeppel, who hated Voorhis." In view of the strong verb "hate", shouldn't this statement be cited?
Not a problem. Just found it in Bullock. "a bitter, relentless foe throughout his life" Nixon bios also call him "enemy" and so forth, but they've all read Bullock too.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Nourished by the PAC controversy, the campaign had new life..." Suggest "the Republican campaign"
"The candidates were compared to Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas" Surely, the comparison was with the Lincoln-Douglas debates rather than, as implied, with the personalities? This should be clarified. Also (for the benefit of Brits etc.), it should be mentioned that the debates in question took place during the 1860 presidential campaign.
No, they were referred to as being like Lincoln and Douglas. Bochin's book is online, see here, page 18. Now, I do have a Newsweek post election article where it refers to Nixon having bested Voorhis in five Lincoln-Douglas debates and Voorhis saying of Nixon "The fellow has a silver tongue" but I'm suspicious of it, it does not sound like Voorhis, even a Voorhis trying to be gracious.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would help my fellow-Brits if some explanation was added as to why the Lincoln and Douglas comparison was made. Could you add the words "who had debated before the 1860 presidential election" or some similar wording, using thr link? This is a suggestion, not a request. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason/history behind Warren's letter praising Voorhis? It seems an odd thing to have done.
Warren probably did not intend it politically, from what I gather. Voorhis used a very nice letter Warren had sent him for helping to get a bill passed in the campaign. Warren did not endorse congressional candidates, but Nixon's people went to Warren and said that since Voorhis is using your letter in his campaign, you should disavow the letter or else endorse Nixon. Warren said Voorhis deserved the compliment and he wasn't going to endorse Nixon. Do you think I should add more exposition there?
"In 1981, three years before his death, Voorhis denied in an interview that he had been endorsed by the NCPAC." Perhaps this should say "In an interview in 1981, three years before his death, Voorhis repeated his denial that he had been endorsed by the NCPAC."
No, you've fallen under the spell of Chotiner. It was the CIO-PAC he denied. He didn't know about the NCPAC until South Pasadena. A little revisionism on Voorhis's part. He "indignantly denied it", too!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Nixon's backers, especially in the Committee of One Hundred, have been a matter of controversy..." Is it not the identity of Nixon's backers which is a matter of controversy?
I've rephrased. I had consecutive paragraphs basically comparing and contrasting the same things. I've combined them. You always catch the things that are bothering me a little, but not quite enough to do anything about it. Now I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will put in those suggestions. Right now Mattisse is busy copyediting and I don't want to ec her, so expect the changes a little later on. I'm please at the reception this article is getting, it gave me a lot of trouble, I started it before the Senate article but found that one was easier to work on.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned with the very first sentence of the article that says, "An election for the United States House of Representatives took place in California's 12th congressional district...." Didn't the election take place throughout the U.S. on the same date? Shouldn't this say something like, "An election for the United States House of Representatives took place on November 5, 1946. In California's 12th congressional district, the candidates were...."? How do other high-quality election articles solve this?
I strongly believe the subject of the article, even if not stated in the exact same words as the title, should be in the first sentence of the article. There is an article about the 1946 elections, though it is mostly tables. I am splitting the first sentence into two sentences, which I think will address your concerns. It bumps "Nixon" into the second sentence, but that can't be helped. The only high quality election article is my article on the United States Senate election in California, 1950, which has a similar tone to the first sentence.
I looked it over. I think it does. In very summary form, it tells what the article is about, and leads the reader through it quickly.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Results section - What do the parenthetical statements in the Primary tables mean? Can you give a text note explaining their meaning? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Regardless of whether my above comments lead to modifications or not, I support the promotion of this article to FA. I have very much enjoyed reading it. The prose is lively, even compelling (and that's saying something for a Wikipedia article!). Congratulations to Wehwalt and the other editors of this article on a fine contribution to Wikipedia. Disclosure note: as I read the article, I made some minor copy-edits to it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was listed on a list of articles requiring an image review. I have reviewed the images (only) on this article, and can find no issues with them. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool (got it on eBay, the other objects photographed are in archives or museums). Is there anything else that needs to be done? This one's getting pretty senior at FAC, image, tech (subject to misbehaving programs), alt all done, three supports, copyedited.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nixon had a great advantage in press coverage in the race. (not cited, according to whom?)
His one avenue of outreach in the press was his newspaper column, People's Business, which ran in most local newspapers. In July 1946, Voorhis chose to suspend this column lest it be thought that he was using it as a means of campaigning. According to Gellman, this weakened Voorhis's political outreach.[93]
The second statement reads as if Voorhis had a great advantage, but gave it up. So, in general, I'm wondering if some of the lead-ins contain synthesis, or can be rephrased or attributed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the lead ins in the aftermath section and reffed, changed, or deleted them. I've expanded and reffed the sentence about the press advantage. That's all of them, Sandy. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 6 September 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.
Comment. Alt text done; thanks.Two of the three images lack alt text. The remaining image has only the alt text "North American box art", which conveys little info about the image. Please see WP:ALT for more about alt text. Eubulides (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"North American box art, depicting an" can be removed, as it duplicates the caption, and also it cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image (see WP:ALT #What not to specify).
"First-person view of a" Is this phrase needed? More important, that alt text doesn't mention the prominent frame around the image, which has a gun pointed at the dinosaur and other icons.
Oppose for now, based on 1a crtieria of WP:WIAFA. "Keys, found on all the levels, enable access to the other stages of the game. When enough keys have been inserted into the lock mechanisms of a hub portal, the level is unlocked." this is confusing. "The player's main objective is to find pieces of a relic known as the Chronoscepter, one on each level" that too. "Turok was announced in August 1994 as an exclusive title for Nintendo's planned "Ultra 64" console, which would eventually be called the Nintendo 64 or N64" there's redundancy there. It needs a runthru. Martin Raybourne (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: The article looks to be in good shape. Here are the issues which stood out to me.
Some words and abbreviations are used interchangeably without letting the reader know that one is an abbreviation. I suggest using "Nintendo 64 (N64)" and "three-dimensional (3D)" in the article for the first instance of the terms and using the abbreviation for the remainder of the article.
The image of the N64 seems a bit superfluous. Maybe mention the analog joystick's reception in the caption to better strengthen the connection.
The fourth development paragraph goes into a lot of detail about Acclaim's woes. This is great information, but it seems better suited for Acclaim's article and deviates too far from the subject of Turok in my opinion.
I know we disagree on the use of quotations in reception sections, but I still have to bring it up I guess: I think the quotes should be paraphrased more. This of course does not break any style guideline to my knowledge so you are welcome to do what you see fit.
The last section reads almost like a "Reception and legacy" section. Maybe consider renaming it. Also, the latter half of the last "Development" paragraph sounds more like reception and legacy content to me, and would fit well with the renaming.
Not sure, but I think a comma is needed after "contrast" here: "In contrast William Burrill of...'".
Are there any other sources to use in place of the older IGN and GameSpot ones?
I've hopefully clarified the 3D and N64 terms, added the N64 joystick info to the photo caption, and renamed the last section. To me the last bit of the development section was more about release and thus didn't really mesh with the reception that well. What do you mean by other sources to use in place of the IGN and GameSpot ones? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)00:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard the comment about sources. Further inspection removed my concerns. IGN was an offshoot of Imagine Publishing in the early days and the GameSpot sources are only being used for opinion and a release date. What about the tangential details of Acclaim's woes? "Both "Nintendo 64" and "N64" are used throughout the article. The clarification removes the confusion, but I think only using one would be more consistent and improve readability. Everything else looks great. (Guyinblack25talk15:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I've gone ahead and swapped N64 out for Nintendo 64. As for the details about Acclaim's woes... yeah, it's a bit tangental as it doesn't deal directly with the game's development, but I think it contextualizes a lot and explicitly states how badly Acclaim needed its first big next-gen title to be a hit. Better to err on the side of more info than less, especially in an article that's not threatened with becoming too chunky, is my standpoint. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)18:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Looks good to me. Though I don't agree with all the content's presentation, it does not seem to violate WP:FA?. The prose is well-written, the article is informative, and the sources look good. Another excellent article David. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25talk18:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Support - based on Citerion 1a. Is the prose clearer to this non-gamer because games have become much more complex over the past ten years :-) ? Graham ColmTalk17:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting (hopefully) article about a football club which folded 120 years ago this year but played a very important part in the development of professional sport. It had a PR, at which User:Finetooth commented that there was very little that needed changing, so hopefully it's now ready for FA, but let me know what you think. Cheers!!!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The alt text looks quite good (thanks), except that the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right corner of this review page shows that alt text is missing for the two kit diagrams. Please fix this by filling in kit_alt1= and kit_alt2= parameters in the article's call to the {{Infobox football club}} template. Thanks.Eubulides (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment I meant to comment at Peer Review but didn't get around to it. Even so, I have very few issues to raise, and even then they are minor picky ones.
The home colours in the infobox look closer to cyan than light blue.
by the leading clubs of the Midlands and north should either have both capitalised or neither.
Support – As a sports history buff, the article was an enjoyable read for me, and appears to meet all criteria. Full disclosure: I made a few tweaks for 1a purposes. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good opening: "Blackburn Olympic F.C. was an English association football club based in Blackburn, Lancashire, which existed in the late 19th century. (This overcomes "existed ... extistence", and the forced vagueness of a 100-year window, clarified in the second para (around the 1880s.)
You could almost get rid of ", however," in the second para, given the "only" before it; up to you (it's 50/50).
"to legalise professionalism two years later"—so it was illegal until then? Or perhaps "to legitimate" or "endorse" or "set the rules for"?
Another ", however," only four seconds later. And I noted two "only"s above (whichd was OK, but do watch those close repetitions).
Comma after "era" because the final clause is such a major statement? Slow down the reader?
"Existence" for a third time. "For most of that decade"? Or remove that phrase altogether if it's assumed ...
Readers have to hit the "strip" link to find out what it means? Still link, but can't it be kinder ... "strip (uniform)" or even "(kit)". Unsure.
Subtle point: "The club's first-choice strip consisted of light blue shirts and white shorts from 1880 onwards."—If you put the time-phrase first, as the grammatical "theme" (point of departure), there will be no sense that they had a first-choice strip before 1880. "From 1880 onwards, the club's ...".
Why the tiny tiny images? MoS's guidelines have been clarified on this recently. I'd be going for 240–280px (or "upright=1.2–1.5").
"where for the first time they faced opponents from the south of England in the form of Old Carthusians."—"in the form of" is a bit laboured in this context (or precious, even); replace with a dash?
"However" best first in a sentence; some pedant in the early 20th C said to next it in commas as the second element. Should have been horse-whipped. Best to give the readers the angle up-front.
"the first occasion on which a northern team had reached the final." --> "the first time a northern ...".
So ... I have no time to sift through the rest at the moment. This should be promoted, I think, but needs an independent run-through—not a long job, since much of it is very well written. It's good. Tony(talk)14:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Tony, I'm presuming you didn't mean to score through most of them. I've tweaked the lead in line with your suggestions. As for the images, I thought we weren't supposed to "force" the size of images other than potentially the lead image..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because... It's been copyedited by Malleus, BrianBoulton, Moni, Xandar, and Iridescent and if there is anything else to be discovered about this mare, I would love to find out. Chicado V is in the top ranks of "blue hen" mares of the Quarter Horse breed, and most all Quarter Horse racehorses descend from her at least once. Ealdgyth - Talk21:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Burke in notes but not refs; conscious choice?
Also, is that pronounced Chicado Vee or Chicado the Fifth? I assume the former, but...?
"started, or took part in races, " really awkward, unless... she... was in a race that she didn't start? I suppose this is an attempted to explain "started", but it doesn't work for me. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Burke is an oversight, fixing now. Pronunciation is up in the air, I'd assume Vee, but nothing definitive is known. My assumption is that she had the V added on to Chicado to distinquish her from an earlier registered "Chicado", the V being chosen for her owner's last name. I've never run across Chicado I, II, III, or IV, but no source states how her name was pronounced. Unfortunately, you wanting me to change the "started" thing conflicts with other editors who wanted an explanation put in. Sometimes, it's impossible to satisfy everyone. Ealdgyth - Talk02:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Broodmare career".. would you add up the sons and daughters and put the total in the first or second sentence of this section (and perhaps in the lead; your call)? Simple addition is NOT WP:OR.
Why? I don't set out the various statistics in Easy Jet or Go Man Go? And where would I stop with this sort of summary? Should I set out how many of each color she had, that's actually of more interest to horsepeople. I could figure the ratio of starters to foals, or the ratio of winners to starters among her foals, more information of interest to horsepeople, but definitely minutiae that would make the already dry article even drier. I'm not saying I won't do it, but I'm curious as to why it's needed? (It's not a common bit of summary information for horses, it's not part of the Legends 5 article and generally isn't something you'll see noted anywhere. For example, although the AQHA dam record gives total numbers on a summary sheet, it's not broken down by number of foals for each gender.) Ealdgyth - Talk02:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is basic information, and extremely relevant. because it is easy to do. Because your lead says "Her daughter x", making it sound like there was only one daughter. Because it adds summary info to the section, making it easier to follow/understand... Here's my count:
Triple Chick — male
War Chic — male
Table Tennis — female
Three Chicks — male
Chicado Chick — male
Anchor Chic — male
The Ole Man — male
Successor — male
Alisal — female
Eh? Where's Rapid Volley in all that? Seems she's a grandget; the lead calls her a daughter...
Typos, probably. Fixed. I've clarified the lead to "One of her daughters..." I've added the information, but I am doing so under protest, I don't see how it's relevant nor how it helps the section, just adds more information that's really not relevant at all. Ealdgyth - Talk12:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does footnote 25 mean that the whole pedigree chart is from that source? If so, I dislike this documentation approach. I suggest a simple line of text indicating the source of the pedigree info. I suppose it could be a note or a footnote, but placing it after Chicado's name is kinda obscure. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. I previously placed the footnote on the "pedigree" header in one of the other horse FAs, but it was rejected there, I'm just following Easy Jet here. Ealdgyth - Talk02:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following previous FAs is a bad idea. Following documentation methods common in literature is a good idea. In stuff I write, the source would not be displayed like that. Do horsey journals place the notes in that manner?
Frankly, horse journals don't footnote pedigrees. A horse journal would have set out ALL that pedigree information in prose (along with discussions of what each ancestor did and how) and if it had been footnoted at all, it would have been in the prose. Personally, I prefer it on the pedigree, where it is. I HAVE seen this approach taken with human pedigrees in genealogy works, so there is precedent. Ealdgyth - Talk12:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do pedigrees always go right to left like that? It's extremely possible; I'm just asking. Seems they do. I went to http://www.qhd.com/ to look.
In the pedigree, why are there asterisks in front of Kilkerrun and Chicle? Why is there an equals sign in front of Spearmint?
Added explanatory note, basically * means it was imported into the United States, and = means that it lived its entire life outside the United States. Because TBs are registered in many different countries, there may be many different horses in different countries with the same names, and the little symbols help distinquish them. It's a convention, that's all. Ealdgyth - Talk12:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference between an AQHA Champion and a World Champion? The lead says "Two of her offspring were named Champion Quarter Running Horses", but I see four champions in her first generation,as per qhd.com's page at Three Generations of Offspring For Chicado V:
QHD is not a reliable source for those records, I took the records off the official AQHA records. AQHA champion is a show title. Champion Quarter Running (or "World Champion" as QHD says) is a racing title. You'll note that I said she had two "Champion Quarter Running Horses" which she did. She also had two AQHA Champions, which are showing titles and not nearly so prestigious. Frankly, QHD is wrong in its terminology here. The only reason I've left it as an external link is that when I take it out, it comes back. It also links to more information on other horses related to her. I've added an explanatory footnote on the first main article usage of "Champion Quarter Running Horse" Ealdgyth - Talk12:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"She set three speed records " should that be, she set two, and equaled one?
It's fixed. To note, that disambig page was just created 30 August 2009, for a redlink. Surely we'd be better off with a hatnote and no disamb page? I kinda doubt that anyone is going to dispute that the breed is the primary usage... but whatever. Ealdgyth - Talk00:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article status because, after very thorough and helpful reviews from Nikkimaria, Brianboulton, and Jonyungk, I believe that it meets the criteria. If not, I would still like to continue to improve the article, and receiving feedback here will help me to do that. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 06:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This article is a thorough and highly enjoyable overview of its subject, much like the articles on The Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew, and as such is thoroughly researached and well written. It deserves at least consideration, if not promotion, to featured article status. Jonyungk (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a few comments for improvement: first, the intro is kind of short per WP:Lead, as it is now well over 32 kb; second, I would still argue for a few more internal links. Also, I'm unsure of the alt text guidelines: is alt text recommended for these images or not? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific as to what you suggest be added to the lead, and what should be linked? I'm not sure about alt text guidelines - it's never come up for me before. I'll see what I can find out. Ricardiana (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comment about the lead was based not on what I feel to be lacking, but on general guidelines - articles of this size should have a 3-4 paragraph lead per WP:Lead. You could potentially add length by a) giving a brief overview of the different series, b) mentioning criticism of the series, or c) simply expanding slightly what's already there, but these are just suggestions. As for internal links, possibilities include: diesel electric locomotive, house trailer, any of the listed writers that have articles (I didn't check to see if they did), photo telephone (or whatever the proper term is), Jews (since African-Americans is linked), the Bible...I'm sure there are plenty of possibilities for helping to WP:Build the web. I, too, was unsure about the alt text...I just remember other FACs being criticized for the lack of appropriate alt text. Anyways, this is a great article, and I think it deserves the FA star. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alt text done; thanks.Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Currently, alt text is present for only one image, and it is too perfunctory ("Tom Swift Jr series").Eubulides (talk) 05:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was tougher than I thought, with these highly ornamented book covers, but I have added alt text to each of the images. My efforts will no doubt benefit from a bit of tweaking, but there you go. Hope to comment on the nom tomorrow.Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for doing this, Brian; I think it looks great. I especially like the description of the last cover - I hadn't realized until this issue came up how hard that cover would be to describe, and "struggling" works very well, I think. Ricardiana (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was a good job. I spotted only one major problem: unnecessary duplication with caption (they are normally read together, so alt text shouldn't duplicate the caption; see WP:ALT #What not to specify). I tweaked it to fix that, and also to make it a tad briefer. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I gave a lot of attention to this article during its peer review, and my concerns were adequately answered then. It reads strongly and fluently, and is an excellent addition to Ricardiana's early work in this genre. I have just a few final quibbles/questions:-
Authorship section: In this section, author information is only given for the first two series, so is "Authorship" the best name for the section? Or is it possible to mention who were the writers of the last three series?
Hmm. Well, I couldn't find reliable sources on the authorship of the last three. I'm not sure what else to call the section, though ... maybe "Creation"?
Series section: the intro (beginning "Five different series featuring Tom Swift...") merely repeats what we have just read, so is it necessary?
Third series (1981-1984): It would be interesting to know if the racial stereotyping evident in the earlier series is present in this and later series.
I agree. Unfortunately, reliable sources on the last three are hard to come by. I put in what I could. I haven't myself read much of the last three - I would say the problem was resolved in much the same way as in other Stratemeyer Syndicate books - by mostly eliminating non-white characters (although the third series does have a Native American character). Ricardiana (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Books: A missing word: "...a half-dozen more in the most [*] series, Tom Swift, Young Inventor,..." Is it "recent"?
Cultural impact: Fourth paragraph begins "The series has..." I take this comment to refer to all five series, in which case "has" is wrong. "The series have..." sounds wrong, but if you were to say "The five series have been criticised for their views...", that sounds OK.
I changed this to "books" only because the critic is mostly talking about the second series, with a little of the first thrown in, and, like most writers on TS, doesn't mention the latter three series. Ricardiana (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As stated at the Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys FAQs, James Keeline has written a number of essays of Stratemeyer Syndicate series which rely on archival research and which have been published in journals that are indexed in the MLA. Ricardiana (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a good idea to remind me of this when you bring the next one of these sorts of FACs... I'm getting old, I can only remember so much (and it's not a broad enough subject to put him on my cheatsheet). I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk11:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will keep that in mind. However, I mentioned that this issue has come up twice before, not as some sort of rebuke or slur on your memory, but in order to establish that consensus has in fact been reached before, and, by naming the specific articles on which it was reached, to enable anyone looking at this FAC to look up the previous discussions and see what was said. Ricardiana (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
What's the point of the piped link pen name in the Authorship seciont? Nothing wrong with this, but it struck me as odd.
"Simon and Schuster produced two other Tom Swift series: one, published from 1991 to 1993, and the Tom Swift, Young Inventor series, begun in 2006." Shouldn't the comma between Swift and Young be changed to an endash? I'm not a grammar expert, but something about that sentence doesn't sound right. Just throwing that out as a possible reason. Regardless, you should be consistent, in the Fifth Series section, the series is titled with colon, not a comma.
Overlink, As racist redirects to racism, this term is linked twice in the Original series section. I'd remove the 1st link, as it is inside a direct quote.
"Stratemeyer Syndicate employee Andrew Svenson described the new series as based "on scientific fact and probability, whereas the old Toms were in the main adventure stories mixed with pseudo-science",[26] and three Ph.D.s in science were hired as consultants to the series to ensure scientific accuracy.[12]" should be split into two sentences.
The fifth series section is very short. Suggest either expanding this section (preferred) or merging with another section.
There are no further reliable sources with which to expand the section; keeping the section separate is in keeping with the structure of the rest of the article. Ricardiana (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Books, television, and other media" is an awkward title. Here's my suggested fix: Re-title "Other media", make the sub-section "Books" the introductory paragraph of the "Series" section above.
I think it reads better this way. The only further suggestion I could make, is I think with the new order, the level 3 heading under "Other media" is now un-necessary.
"; no film, however, was made -> IMO "; however, no film was made" sounds better.
I still think it reads better without, but It's not a big deal.
First sentence of Cultural impact, shouldn't the parenthesis be changed to en-dashes? (might want to double check with someone more knowledgeable about grammar).
I retract this. WP:MOS#Colons does show an example of colon usage similar to this statement. It's just not a usage I'm familiar with.
In explaining the change from TSER to taser the "'A'" is upper case but taser is lower case. IMO the cases should match.
Taser is routinely spelt this way, in this article and in other reliable sources; the original acronym of TSER is spelt in all caps in the cited article. Ricardiana (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, my question is should the "'A'" be downcased to match the casing of taser? I don't know the answer, just asking.
The stray sentence at the end of the article should probably be moved up to the proceeding paragraph.
I'm surprised there isn't a rebuttal to the criticisms of the series pointing out that these ideas were acceptable and even popular in their time. Do your sources support such a statement?
Not doubting your sourcing. Should future research turn up a source with rebuttals to these criticisms, I think that should be included.
I'm concerned about this source [57] The publisher appears to be a personal website, and the posting of an entire page of Time magazine may be a copyright violation. Have you asked our non-free content experts if this is ok?
Awadewit, who is an expert on this kind of thing, reviewed this article and found no problem with the scan. In any case, the Times' content is available through databases; I've cited to this website rather than a database b/c it is accessible to anyone, not just university students/faculty. Ricardiana (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking, just wanted to be sure.
Keeline.com is a personal website. Does Mr. Keeline have sufficient credentials to comply with those guidelines? (I'm sure Ealdgyth either has or will bring this up)
That's about it. Interesting read, these issues are mostly minor prose issues that can be easily fixed. Thanks for putting effort into this article.Dave (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another of the {{Invincibles Advert}}. Neil Harvey was the youngest member of the team and his century in the Headingley Test stopped the English attack, which had seized the initiative. Australia recovered to restore parity in the first innigns and finished off a the match with a world record. He was also known for his dazzling fielding YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV04:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per CI, Miller hit two sixes in the first inns at Leeds. As per the article : "with Miller taking the lead. He hoisted off spinner Jim Laker's first ball over square leg for six." and "Miller then lifted Laker for a six over long off, and another over long on from Yardley to reach 54". Tintin08:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add - the hits off Yardley were two fours, as per Arlott.
*Comment2 "Harvey’s knock had taken 177 minutes and included 14 fours." - 188/17 as per CI, please cross check. Tintin08:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add - the stands with Miller and Loxton were of 90 & 95 minutes. So 188 is the more sensible number. Tintin08:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Misread the thing. 177 seems to be the time taken to reach 100.[reply]
Comment3 Did Bradman deliberately let Harvey hit the winning boundary ? Vaguely remember seeing something like that somewhere. That would be worth a mention because of what happened at Oval. Tintin08:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This is the second nom by YM in little more than 24 hours. That doesn't seem in keeping with the spirit of the FAC instructions, if not the exact letter. Giants2008 (17–14) 16:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Early tour: "so Australia were effectively six wickets down and faced its first loss to an English county since 1912." Tense conflict with "were" and "its". I'd change the second because the remainder of the article uses plural.
"including two leaping catches in the second innings with his hands above his heads." Harvey had two heads? :-)
Fourth Test: "Harvey was called into the team for the Fourth Test at Headingley at the expense of the Barnes." One "the" too many.
"This allowed Australia to seize the initiative, with Harvey joined the counterattack during the next over". Last part is off.
"Loxton came in to join Harvey at 4/189, who continued to attack...". Might be better if "at 4/189" was moved to the start of the sentence, placing Harvey before "who".
Fifth Test: the previous The Oval link is only a few paragraphs above, meaning this one can safely be removed.
Later matches: "part of a collapse in which Australia lose their last seven wickets for 89 to end at 361." "lose" → "lost" to ensure past tense.Giants2008 (17–14) 02:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with this epic run of Yellow Monkey's Invincibles' articles, so i am sure someone will jump in if they think I'm out of line here. All WP articles I would have thought should be reasonably self-contained: they should make sense in their own right. The body text beings "Towards the end of the Test series against Indian in 1947–48 in Australia, knee injuries had begun to hamper Toshack,..." At which point I'm thinking "who's Toshack? Bowler or batsman?" etc. My understanding - i've had an interchange with User:SlimVirgin about this - is that the lead is supposed to summarise the body of the article. Reversing that statement, therefore, the article body of the text should tell me everything that is summarised in the lead. It doesn't. The body text assumes i know this is about Cricket, about a tour to England, what sort of cricketer Toshack was (batsman, bowler) etc etc. I think the background needs to lunch in less abruptly.
That's much better. When you have the time, I recommend a run through all the sister articles (which I believe you intend to bring through FAC) and check they provide similar context. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Minor point - something is seriously wrong with the note before the references.
I had to come to an agreement with some other users who objected to me using a large grouped ref in the text, so a solution was made up to get one cite to link to a separate grouped cite numbers. Simply grouping 30 refs in one ref markup would not have worked because the refs were reused then we would have printed the same 30 refs in full twice YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV06:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case, but it is incomprehensible to a reader. They get to a sentence in the last para, which says "...invariably being placed at either No. 10 and No. 11 in the order alongside Johnston,[1] another tailender with little batting ability.N-[1]", and this strange N-1 thing points down to a string of footnote cite tags. No text at all. Even with the benefit of your initial response above I have no idea what this is about. Why do you need to cite all these matches to support this sentence? Is there seriously no analysis (in the sporting pages of the papers in1948-49 for example, let alone the books about this famous team) that would substantiate the preceding remark? However, if the note is necessary, please provide some text for it (here and in all the similar articles, if this is a system across these individual articles) so that a reader coming to this cold can make sense of it. It should be easily done, either as text in the note, or as article text directly beneath the "Statistical note" heading. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I'm going to be a grammar Nazi (to the benefit of the article) so try to put up with my comments:
The first paragraph of the lead is just confusing. "went undefeated in their 34 matches", is this talking about Ernie or the Aus Cricket Team? If it's the latter I assume you want "was undefeated in its 34 matches" or similar. If it's the former, distinction needs to be made because the sentence runs: Ernie, Aus, Ernie, with no obvious break.
Background: "played in every Test over the next two summers, fitness permitting". Isn't that stating the obvious? Doesn't everyone play, fitness permitting? How many did he actually miss due to injury?
" ": From and including: "The tour was to guarantee him immortality as a member of Bradman's Invincibles." I begin to lose my way:
Firstly, the opening sentence has two meanings for me: the tour guaranteed him a permanent place in Bradman's team, or, being part of Bradman's team guaranteed him publicity. In both cases, is "immortal" the right term to use? How about "As a member of Bradman's Invincibles, the tour was to immortalise him"?
"during the voyage". Which voyage is this? It's probably to England, but this is "Background", which could encompass any number of years; it's best to specify.
"As a result, there are still sheets in circulation with his name mis-spelt as Toshak." Why would mis-spelling be a given result of his friend signing autographs? Was Toshak his nickname or was his friend not good with a pen?
"Toshack again focused on the leg stump", near the bottom of "Early Tour Matches" is almost duplicated in "Role". Is this meant to happen or are there two instances of this in the tour? Or is the point of "Role" to sum up what has already been said?
Would it not be good to have a picture in amongst the article somewhere? The article on Ernie Toshack has some good ones (no doubt you're aware of this having worked on it so much!), so is there an issue with using them?
Jappalang would object to those, as they aren't definitively pre-1946, that's why I commented them out.
Okay, won't pursue that then.
By the way, your campaign on The Invincibles for FAT is incredible. How long has it taken you to reach this stage?
A while. The "in 48" ones didn't take so long because there is a big overlap with the contents of the individual Tests, as the tour games were teh only things that had to be put in. Miller and the daughter articles took the most. Bradman took a lot of time from Phanto282 (talk·contribs) YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Three Roland Perry books are listed in the references, but only one is used as a cite. Somewhat curious as to why that is the case, and if they should be listed under Further reading instead. Prose looks okay at the start of the article, but I want to read the entire page before supporting.Giants2008 (17–14) 01:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Gave it a brief cleanup pass, and the article looked good. The background section was a welcome addition, and I hope to see it in other articles on the topic that reach FAC. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
*"After the hosts recovered to 6/148, Toshack returned", "Toshack had taken 6/51 in a long spell of 27 overs" these sentences appear to contradict each other, the first suggests he came back at 6/148, the second that he bowled throughout most of the innings including during the MCC recovery.
Ken Cranston was an all-rounder rather than batsman.
"the hosts were skittled for 89" 86 according to CA.
Tim Lester -> Ted Lester
"Saggers stood up to the wickets and stumped Tim Lester before Toshack removed three more lower-order batsmen" This suggests that Lester was a low order batsman, yet he batted at five.
"Bradman elected to use his part-timers" Three of the four bowlers used were Johnston, McColl and Ring who aren't part-timers to me.
"Toshack took four catches on tour" two according to CA.
"As Australia's other specialist bowlers were Lindwall, McCool, Johnson and Doug Ring, all of whom made centuries and more than 20 fifties each during their first-class career" Lindwall had 19 and Ring 20.
Support - Don't know much at all about Toshack and was an interesting read. This sentence in 'First Test' seems slightly awkward, "During the second innings, Bradman thought that rain might come so he utilised Toshack to bowl defensive leg theory." Anyway maybe it's just me. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:05, 31 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.
My first attempt at writing about this oft-neglected era of motorsport. Thanks go to 4u1e for the comments and Malleus Fatuorum for the copyedit. If possible, I'd like to get the article on the main page for the 28th of September, the 50th anniversary of his death. Please note that one image (File:Caratsch.jpg) is lacking sourcing information, but SoWhy has contacted the original uploader (an admin on de.wiki) and we are currently awaiting a reply. Apterygial00:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a convention used across all motorsport articles, so changing it's not a small thing. I can't see anything in MOSBOLD, which seems to be mainly concerned with article text rather than tables, that forbids it. Surely it's just another 'special case' like the other examples listed there? It's certainly the neatest, simplest way of getting the information across without clutter or confusion. 4u1e (talk) 06:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - Support providing the issues surrounding the image are resolved. Otherwise the article looks good; it reads well, is free of excessive jargon and is comprehensive in it's coverage. As a minor point, I'd like to see articles created where there are red-links, but that isn't enough of a problem to prevent the article obtaining FA status IMO. AlexJ (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does this page make a case for reliability? Also, it's just a quote from someone, not original writing on the part of the website, and quoted from Neubauer's book (which I don't have access to). Apterygial02:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with the reliability of the source. The list of contributors on the website includes numerous people from a defunct reliable TV program. Also, it's a quote, not a contentious fact which would require a HIGHLY reputable source. Royalbroil12:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice and engaging article. Well written and appears comprehensive, well-researched and compliant with MOS. Some minor points that I would like to see addressed:
-I'd prefer to see the following opinions removed or attributed to someone:
"Perhaps his only real disappointment in 1932"
"From here, he might have been able to see Seaman leave the track at the same corner"
"He has a reputation of a perfectionist, who very rarely had accidents or caused mechanical failures in his cars, who could deliver when needed regardless of the conditions."
-"the Clerk of the Course ordered Caracciola to cede the lead to Rosemeyer on the ninth lap." Why?
I think I've fixed all of these concerns, either by removing opinions or further citing them. On the other two points, I have added additional information. Apterygial02:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Just a few quickies, since it's late in America and I'm tired. Hopefully I can find time in the next day or two to copy-edit the rest, if needed.
A lot of sentences in the first paragraph start with "He". Can some variety be introduced?
Eubulides went through the alt text in the article an found no fault. It seems entirely logical to me that his name should be mentioned, as I've described him in the lead picture, so further descriptions would just get repetitive. Anyway, thanks for your review so far. Apterygial11:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be able to source this, but I would say that it is a corruption of Caracciola's name, spelt the German way, and as such wouldn't have a translation. Apterygial06:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
define or wikilink "works driver", "reserve driver", "Clerk of Course". Could be links to List of motorsport terminology.
I did "works driver" and "Clerk of Course". I think "reserve driver" is fairly self explanatory, and probably doesn't need to be linked. Apterygial06:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Like many early motor racing drivers, he was descended from aristocracy" says the same thing as "Motorsport in Germany at the time, as in the rest of Europe, was an exclusive sport, mainly limited to the upper classes." The thoughts should be next to each other to build on each other. Or they could be separate if you don't repeat the thought that early motor racing drivers were rich.
I think they are fairly different thoughts. Caracciola was descended from aristocracy, but that went back centuries, and I don't really think he could be considered upper class. His parents owned a hotel, after all, and they probably weren't terribly rich. I can't imagine any Princes working as apprentices at an automobile factory! Apterygial06:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"started from the back row of the grid (decided by a ballot)" - the ballot part is unnecessarily confusing and probably not needed because it begs questions. Why was there a ballot and who voted? The fans? The drivers?
I recommended that this was included. At the time starting positions were drawn at random, not set by qualifying times as almost all readers will expect, so the implication of starting last is not what it is today. Perhaps say instead that drivers drew lots for starting positions, or that positions were allocated randomly, both of which avoid the implication of an electoral ballot. 4u1e (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"to refill his car with petrol, ruled him out of contention" should be some rewording. "ruled him out of contention" is technically not correct (who ruled that he's out of contention?). It did place him too far behind to recover.
"after their car's generator burnt out" generator should be wikilinked to Alternator#Automotive_alternators because I think it's too technical for a non-motorsport enthusiast. There are other more common engine parts like valve, axle, etc. that you should consider wikilinking.
There still are around 5 more car parts mentioned in the article that failed which caused him to retire from events that should get wikilinks like valves, etc. Royalbroil11:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand. Why were they able to choose their starting position? Did the grid alignment system change from random allocation to something else? Was the quickest qualifier able to select where they start? Did they have the quickest 3 qualifiers as a team and thus were able to select 3 spots anywhere on the starting grid? Royalbroil11:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
reason for Chiron's firing is too far off-topic "ostensibly for refusing to stay at the same hotel as the rest of the team" Royalbroil04:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. It's a great story though. :) Thanks for the review so far. Apterygial
Support, but u should add the pronunciation of his name as he has a rather tricky last name to pronunce for non-Italians. --Sporti (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – My run-through to clean up various minor prose issues has gone slower than I would have liked, but I am getting there. There is one sentence, however, that I can't fix without knowledge of the subject: "He transferred to a private clinic in Bologna, where his injuries remained in plaster for six months." I'm pretty sure his body parts were in the cast, and the sentence should say that. Giants2008 (17–14) 17:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean something like "He transferred to a private clinic in Bologna, where his leg remained in plaster for six months."? Apterygial23:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please be specific and change your proposed sentence to say "... in a plaster cast for six months". Just saying plaster is too informal - I'd be wondering: a plaster what-huh??). Royalbroil12:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a little harsh, Royal. 'In plaster' is perfectly normal (and formal) usage for a plaster cast, and very unlikely to be confused with a sticking plaster. 4u1e (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what the suggestion is to change the sentence? I'll change it if need be, but I'm not able to spot an obvious problem there. Apterygial22:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if you took my comment to be harsh or crude, certainly it was not my intention. I've never heard the usage "in plaster" to mean "in a plaster cast" - maybe it's not formal enough in American English but is fine in Australian and British English. It reads as way too informal to this American. I hope that you change it - if it reads as informal to part of the world, don't you want change it to something that equally as good to you and better in the world view? Royalbroil02:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it. Looks like another one of those irritatingly common differences between British English (of which Australian English is a subset) and American English. I've never thought of "in plaster" as being either informal or ambiguous. Apterygial07:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Caratsch.jpg needs something to prove that it was originally published without a copyright notice. Also, the source needs to be deeplinked further.
File:Millemiglia-Radicofani-Montalcino.jpg - I suppose that this could indeed be from his own private collection. However, that would make the uploader's age (77 + the age he was in 1932). That's certainly possible, though rather unlikely. The original image though, suggests that it is indeed the case, and I can't find anything on the web to contradict that.
All we have to go on with File:Caratsch.jpg is the uploader's word. SoWhy contacted the uploader (an admin at de.wiki) asking for sourcing information, and translated his reply here. There's not much I can do past that, but I'll have a look when I have more time. See my conversation about File:Millemiglia-Radicofani-Montalcino.jpg at the uploader's Italian talk page, and I'm satisfied with that explanation. The other images should now have English descriptions. Apterygial22:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Millemiglia looks alright then, but to my understanding of our image use policy, there has to be something more besides AGF that verifies that Caratsch is indeed in the public domain. I know that for movies, one thing that people often do is link to youtube videos of the credits. Obviously, such a thing would be impossible here, but perhaps finding the original link in the archive or getting a copy of the original and photographing it would be a way to go. NW(Talk)16:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image that my oppose was on has been removed from the article until we can clear the issues about it up. The rest of the images are fine. Oppose struck. NW(Talk)15:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I like this article. Very cool. Not a big motor sports fan, but the old stuff is intriguing to me. In terms of scope and focus, this is terrific. I'm not going to comment on the sources, 'cause I don't know the literature well. Your images are appropriate, and well spaced, although I do think some of them could be bigger, because it is hard to see what they are in the thumb size. Writing I do know something about, and here are my comments on that. Please bear in mind these are niggling little comments, for the most part, relating to clarity, etc. I do think your use of commas is minimalist, and normally I'd use more, but my friends call me the "comma-kazi" (and I call them "comma-tose"). sb=should be
*...which ruled him out of racing for more than a year... sounds like it was a rule...how about eliminated him from racing....
For me, "eliminated" sounds even more like it was a competition, and he lost because he was injured. I don't know, I just doesn't sound right. Apterygial04:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Mercedes-Benz racing team in 1934, with whom...sb with which....
I think "with whom". The racing team is a group of people, not an object. If it was a car, or a type of tyre, "with which" would be appropriate. Apterygial06:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ah....American vs Queen's English.
*Motorsport in Germany at the time, as in the rest of Europe, was an exclusive sport, mainly limited to the upper classes. redundant
well, I still disagree. How about eliminating this part from the first paragraph: " Like many early motor racing drivers, he was descended from aristocracy;" First, you don't have a cite for it...do we know how many others there were, and secondly, it's distracting. The important thing you're explaining here is how that Italian name ended up on a German.Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Rosenberger lost control at the North Curve on the eighth lap when trying to pass a slower car, and crashed into the timekeepers' box, killing all three occupants, but Caracciola kept driving.... but? how about omitting the but (since you have the same structure in the next sentence but one). Caracciola kept driving. (and what happened to Rosenberger?)
*He was surprised, when he crossed the 20th and final lap, to have won the race. He wasn't surprised to be finish the race, certainly....?
He was surprised to have been announced the victor; I think he thought he was going to come last and blow any chance he had of ever driving for Mercedes. Apterygial04:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sticking my oar in again (sorry Ap!): "When he finished the 20th and final lap, he was surprised to find that he had won the race"? 4u1e (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*...However, a lengthy pit stop, which took four and a half minutes to refuel his car, left him unable to recover the time, and he eventually finished third
Caracciola and Chiron drove into a ditch at the side of the road to avoid the debris; while Chiron was able to continue Caracciola drove into a tree. huh???? How about: To avoid the debris, Caracciola and Chiron both drove off the road; Chiron was able to continue in the race after pushing his car out of a ditch, but Caracciola had driven into a tree.
I don't think Chiron got out, he must have rocketed out from the ditch back onto the circuit (this kind of crazy thing happened a lot in the early days) while Caracciola drove along the ditch for a bit and crashed into the tree. Apterygial04:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
how spectacular that was! Can you clean it up a bit to clarify it? To avoid the debris, C and C drove into a ditch; Chiron drove out the other end, but C hit a tree and was out of the race. Or something....
...the local fleet of Alfa Romeos battled for the lead early in the race, but when they fell back Caracciola was able to take control. .... How about splitting it in two. When they fell back, Caracciola was able to take control....
*with ten laps remaining in the race Caracciola was so close he could see Nuvolari changing gears. It was in this manner that the race finished. awkward .....how about .... For the last ten laps of the race, C. was so close he could see Nuvolari changing gears.
...where his injuries remained in a plaster cast for six months? His injuries remained in a cast? *Where did his hip go? Presumably it was in the cast?
other reviewers stumbled over this sentence, so it should be a clue that it's not universally accessible at first, or even second, read. I realize it's probably the difference between our colloquialisms, but you're saying his injuries remained in a cast. It gives me the giggles, like the rest of him wasn't in the cast, just his injuries. Obviously, you mean his injured parts, but they didn't remove the parts from the rest of him, so he remained in a cast too. How about his injured hip remained in a cast?
"he remained in a plaster cast" makes me giggle, imagining Rudi completely enveloped by plaster for six months... I appreciate your logic that other reviewers have had a problem with the sentence at the moment, but your suggestion just confuses me. He injured his thigh, not his hip. Perhaps "his injured leg remained in a plaster cast"? Apterygial00:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YES! :)
*Charlotte was able to take her husband back to Arosa, where the altitude and fresh air would aid his recovery. Charlotte took....?
*Alfred Neubauer, the Mercedes racing manager, travelled to the Caracciolas' chalet in Lugano in November with a view to signing him for the...I'm sure there was a great view at the chalet in Lugano, but probably he planned to sign him. I think "view to signing him" is probably slang?
*A visit from Chiron encouraged him otherwise, and despite his initial reservations he was persuaded to drive the lap of honour ... A visit from Chiron encouraged him to return to racing, and, despite his initial reservations, he was persuaded to drive the lap of honour (also, needs clarification, lap of honour?)
*Charlotte died when the party she was skiing with in the Swiss Alps was hit by an avalanche. .... Charlotte died in an avalanche in the Swiss Alps....? too much detail.
* Although the chassis of the W25 was shortened, and the engine was significantly upgraded to 4.74 litres, but the car proved inferior to the Type C developed by Auto Union
* ....but in a practice for the race, Caracciola was hit on the head by an object, believed to be a bird, and crashed into the south wall. The organisers had insisted he wear a tank driver's helmet, which saved his life; despite this precaution, he suffered a severe concussion and was in a coma for several days
"in practice" is very common in motorsport writing, as it takes place at designated times and is always part of a race weekend, unlike the more informal practice sessions in other sports. I think the comma breaks up the flow of the sentence a liitle too much, and seems a little redundant. Apterygial04:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you've managed to keep jargon out of the article, mostly, so I suggest you fix this in some way so it is not "common motorsport writing"....
* Like most German racing drivers in Nazi Germany, Caracciola was a member of the NSKK.[117] The primary function of the NSKK was as a paramilitary organisation of the Nazi Party devoted to motor racing and motor cars, and during the Second World War it handled transport and supply logistics. Awkward. How about... Like most German racing drivers in Nazi Germany, Caracciola had joined the NSKK, a paramilitary organization of the NSDAP devoted to motor racing and motor cars; during the war, it handled transport and supply.
*During the war, he continued to receive a pension from Daimler-Benz until 1942, when the firm ceased his payments under pressure from the Nazi party Confusing. The NS-regime pressured the DB to stop his pension payments in 1942
*Links: German Grand Prix, Italian Grand Prix, etc., all have pages, yet you link them to the year, not the page?
I prefer to link to the more specific page. I could use the links without piping, but it would mean the same year is repeated several times across the same paragraph, and would grow redundant and vaguely annoying after a bit. Apterygial04:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are not major, in fact they are somewhat niggling details, but will help the overall readability, I think....Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:44, August 29, 2009
Apterygial, the things I still have questions/comments about are not crossed out, and I've spaced between them so you can find them more easily. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT. This is a very interesting article to read, even for a non-motorsports fan. the writing is nicely done, easy to read, and it has a good tone. The links seem appropriate, and easy to follow. I cannot comment on the sources. The pictures work with the flow of the text. All in all, definitely ready for prime time. And Aptery is a delight to work with. I've learned a lot about Australian slang ;) For the sake of "transparency," I should say that the editor and I discussed this on my user talk page, and reached the conclusion that if half the English speaking world understood it, and the other half didn't, then it probably should be fixed so that all (or at least most) of the English speaking world understood it. The issue over the plaster cast was not just "plaster cast" but how the plaster cast was used (what was encased in it). Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
^Loyd, Linda (July 6, 2003). "Two Pills Look to Topple Viagra's Reign in Market; Levitra Expects Approval Next Month, Cialis Later This Year". The Philadelphia Inquirer. p. E01.
The ALT text looks awesome. 
Thanks
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[27]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IVe9ks0EWr4/SkTMc5u6JyI/AAAAAAAACc4/Si92W-wc_Zg/s400/remix+mag+cover.jpeg){kind=link}
![[28]](http://www.djshadow.com/sites/default/files/djs_news_images/41_remixmag_enlarge.jpg){kind=link}
![[30]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3296/2848223106_1cec162477.jpg){kind=link}
![[31]](http://www.artisanbiscuits.co.uk/site/TheListMagNov08.jpg){kind=link}
![[57]](http://www.tomswift.info/homepage/ts_times_ad.jpg){kind=link}
