I am nominating this article for featured article status as I believe this article meets the criteria. The article was previously submitted to FAC once before. I believe I have addressed the concerns from the previous nomination, and I look forward to any new feedback that arises out of this process. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 16:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images and sources reviewed in previous FAC; please advise if they have changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - On prose.
Subsequently in 1995, he starred in the romantic drama Before Sunrise and its sequel Before Sunset (2004). - subsequently is a very exclusive adverb... not correct here
In November 2007, Hawke directed his first play, the two-act Things We Want. - not sure I like "two-act"
Hawke was born in Austin, Texas, to Leslie Carole (née Green) and James Steven Hawke, a high-ranking executive at Conseco. - ambiguity
Otherwise, looks great! ceranthor 19:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I supported this recently at its earlier FAC, after numerous issues which I raised had been addressed. The article is essentially the same now as when that FAC was archived. As to Ceranthor's comments above, I have fixed the first two (and for clarity have added the author's name to the play). Can Ceranthor explain the ambiguity he sees in the "Hawke was born..." sentence? I'm afraid it escapes me. Brianboulton (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comment there was quite ambiguous itself, actually. Was his mother a housewife? Since the article mention the father's occupation, ThinkBlue should mention also Hawke's mother's job. ceranthor 12:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've read, at the time of his birth, she was a college student. That's all I found. When she divorced from her second husband, she took a "string of jobs in education, the nonprofit sector and Internet publishing".[2] -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 00:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, fair enough. ceranthor 00:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The issues I raised at the previous FAC have been resolved. Awadewit (talk) 19:54, 26 October 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.
Bahia was a Brazilian cruiser which served in both World Wars. Easily the most interesting—and oddest—part of her career was her sinking; depth charges aboard the ship were exploded by accidental 20 mm gunfire, sinking the ship within minutes. As you might imagine, there are not many sources on this ship, and the sources that I did get tend to frequently contradict, which made this a rather difficult article to write. I made attempt to address this within the article using notes, but further comments would be appreciated. Thanks for your reviews! Cheers, —Ed(talk • contribs) 19:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright review - All image copyrights appropriate. Feel free to move this comment to the FAC page when this goes up. NW(Talk) 21:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Specifications. I have checked the specifications quoted in the article against Janes Fighting Ships of World War I (Litho reprint of 1919 ed.). London: Janes Publishing Company reprint by Random House. 2001. ISBN1 85170 378 0. and all match very closely save for Janes stating the endurance to have been 1,400nmi at 23.5kts and 3,500nmi at 10kts (as opposed the article stating 5,500nmi at 10.7kts). Farawayman (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find where I got 5500nmi; the source I cited either removed it or I found it somewhere else. Either way, citing Jane's is fine by me. Can you add citations to the infobox for everything Jane's covers (on the theory that many citations are better than a few)? I'll add the full citation in the bibliography. Many thanks, —Ed(talk • contribs) 22:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Headbomb:
Should Brown-Curtis be Brown–Curtis?
I think 'Atlantic to Pacific theaters of war' could be wikilinked to something.
Parà-class is hyphenated, but Adventure class is not. Pick one style or the other and stick with it throughout the text.
Could presidential palace be wikilinked to something?
Wikilinking stuff in "First World War, the Brazilian Navy was sent out to patrol the South Atlantic with French, British and American naval units" would make it better. Particularly the individual navies.
Should "Lucas Alexandre Boiteux" be wikilinked?
Wikilink "underwater mine"?
"The survivors of the blast had to endure four or five days of no food," → "The survivors of the blast endured four or five days of no food," seems better to me.
Wikilink "Robert Scheina"?
These are style issues mostly, and I don't feel like deciding for the author what is best for the article. I trust that these will be fixed or otherwise be addressed. Content-wise everything looks fine to me. Hence support. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Kirk
I was reviewing the Scheina book, and I'm almost positive the reference is for Volume 2: The age of the professional soldier, 1900-2001 since the page# matches. My ISBN# doesn't match, so I'm hesitant to change it without checking first.
There should be some mention about the Bahia cruiser type changing over time - instead of just the one mention of scout cruiser at the very beginning. It never was comparable to a full cruiser, so I'd sprinkle in some light cruiser & as it became more and more obsolete, it was more of a destroyer.
It appears that they have the same ISBN for both of the volumes? Worldcat is probably mistaken. Either way, the OCLC is right, and if you have a copy of the book that says it is really a different ISBN, please add it.
The problem is that reliable sources don't remark on it outside what is already in the article: "Bahia was used extensively during for escorts and patrols, conducting 67 of the former and 15 of the latter[3] despite being labeled as "little more than oversized destroyers and relatively slow" by the United States Naval Institute's magazine, Proceedings.[19]" —Ed(talk • contribs) 17:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References look good now. I was thinking of the sources you cited which I read that called the Bahia a 'Light Cruiser' as opposed to 'Cruiser' (Scheina, for one). Kirk (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term "light cruiser" wasn't around until the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty though. :-) Contemporary sources (ex. [4]) refer to her simply as a cruiser. —Ed(talk • contribs) 20:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Light cruisers, as in light armoured cruisers, were around prior to the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty, but the Bahia was based on a scout cruiser class instead of a light cruiser. So before the treaty it was a scout cruiser, after a light cruiser (and very small at that). Kirk (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support: Farawayman
As requested above, I have added some specifications (coal) and aligned the endurance data with that of Janes. Citations added as well.
Re the Janes reference, Moore wrote the foreword and is not the author. I'm not too sure how that should be managed in the reference / citation. The Janes volumes that I have do not have a stated author.
The specification infobox section called "General characteristics" should perhaps have a note stating that these were applicable on commissioning, as after the 1920's refit I presume the specifications would have changed quite significantly.
Hmm, the deck armor listing does not agree with Conway's... —Ed(talk • contribs) 21:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Loosmark
The article doesn't mention that this ship was a scout cruiser, much more lightly armed and armoured than a protected cruiser. Loosmark (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The design was based off of a British scout cruisers', but as I said to Kirk above, most sources refer to both Bahia and Rio Grande do Sul simply as "cruisers". —Ed(talk • contribs) 20:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cruisers of World War Two: An International Encyclopedia by Whitley refers to them as "scout cruisers". Loosmark (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have the book? If so, can I ask you to add information and/or citations for information already present to the article? I don't have access to that book through anything, including inter-library loan; I've tried. Does he have any significant information on Bahia's and Rio Grande do Sul's service careers? —Ed(talk • contribs) 21:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not, it has similar info as the article only in a much shorter form. One difference is the source gives the number of convoys escorted by Bahia as 64 (Rio Grande do Sul escorted 62) plus that Bahia participated in 11 other mission and Rio Grande do Sul participated in 15. I don't know if that is more correct than what the article says or not. Loosmark (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everywhere I turn, the sources contradict each other... Two things: you have an email, and what page is that information on? I'll include both figures in the article. —Ed(talk • contribs) 22:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's on page 22. Loosmark (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've added the info. Don't forget to check you inbox! :-) Much thanks, —Ed(talk • contribs) 02:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under "First World War" could the phrase "Towards the beginning of the First World War" by tightened a bit? That's very broad when the first actual date you read is 26 October 1917.
Is "In the opening years of the ..." better?
Sort of. My issue is mostly just the lack of specificity, which that doesn't do much about. Staxringoldtalkcontribs 03:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have refs in the lead, but maybe something for "also spelled Baia in some sources" to deal with the weasel word?
Are you working on her class' article? Seems like a pretty big red link.
Under "First World War" could the phrase "Towards the beginning of the First World War" by tightened a bit? That's very broad when the first actual date you read is 26 October 1917.
Is the use of the coordinate system in text normal? I honestly don't know.
I simply removed it; looking back, only one source spelled it that way.
If I can find more information, yes. Otherwise, hopefully the redlink will spur someone with more applicable sources then me to create a decent article.
Support I really beat the crap out of this article at the A-class review and it has all been resolved. I do not see anything of major error that should prevent the pass to FA. --Brad (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for everything Brad! We may have sparred a bit, but the article is surely the better for your efforts. :-) —Ed(talk • contribs) 04:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Made some minor changes to the text. This reads oddly: with the exhaust being trunked into three funnels, instead of two; trunked means to combine multiple funnels into one. They added a funnel as is explained in the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you're right. I can't think of a better way to phrase it though... —Ed(talk • contribs) 05:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then say that they had to add a funnel for the extra boilers. Trunking has nothing to do with it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Kirk: I made some minor changes too, trying to reduce the number of red links, fixing some references, and I think its FA.
Loosmark and I both mentioned the type should be Scout cruiser prior to 1922, and after 1922 Light Cruiser (although it was so 'light' many sources still refer to it as a scout cruiser). Should we just go in and start changing 'cruiser' to scout/light cruiser? I don't feel like there was a consensus on this point, and nothing has changed.
I created the Pará class destroyer article based on Conway (although I haven't deal with the later Fletcher class destroyer-based version)- what do you think about doing the same thing for the two major red links at the top for Bahia-class-cruiser and its sister ship? I think this should be done prior to the FA approval, thoughts?Kirk (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need to deliberately add mentions here—outside of the "Construction and commissioning" section, I believe Bahia is referred to as a "cruiser" just once. —Ed(talk • contribs) 20:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to add a 'light cruiser' and 'heavy cruiser' twice for cruisers other than the Bahia; the Bahia's class I guess we can leave to the reader. Kirk (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. I'll change the mention of "cruiser" to "scout cruiser". —Ed(talk • contribs) 16:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning on writing Brazilian cruiser Rio Grande do Sul, but I would rather leave Bahia-class cruiser as a redlink so (hopefully) someone with better sources than me—I have access to Conway's and that's about it + Scheina doesn't have much—will see it and write the article. —Ed(talk • contribs) 20:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about it & I went ahead and created the Bahia class cruiser article based on this one since it this article already had about 95% of the info needed. Thanks! Kirk (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eek, I can see the many similarities between that and this one lol. I'll try to beef that up later. —Ed(talk • contribs) 12:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comment - lean support - I checked through some of them but haven't had a chance to go through thoroughly. However, I haven't seen anything that caught my eye or stood out yet. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it's been improved since GA, and I need to get this to FA to fulfil the requirements for the Bird project's first Featured Topic. None of the peculiar sexual practices of the Ruff, so sensitive readers need not fear. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Two pictures duplicate "supplementary" and these two are also very similar, the second seems only to add a bit of detail to the first. Consider differentiating.MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "convergent evolution" - is there oversimplifications in the article? Snowman (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand why the beak of the Australian choughs and the European choughs evolved to be similar, because of he way they both forage for food. I do not understand why the rest of the body should be similar, because one habitats rocky high habitats. What its the evidence that the ancestors were different and did converge? Snowman (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed mention of convergent evolution since this seems speculative, just kept similar bill Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is one way of fixing it.Snowman (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see convergent evolution is back in the article again. Snowman (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed as earlier. Snowman (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allen's rule does not help to explain convergent evolution - Australia is hot and mountains are cold, so the two species might be expected to have different extremities. Snowman (talk)
I think that the rules apply to closely related apecies/subspecies - White-winged isn't a corvid, so not a valid comparison Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed by omitting convergent evolution - see above. Snowman (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trawl for possible omissions
Is there anything physiologically, biochemically, or anatomically special about the bird or the egg that enable it to nest at a highest altitude of any bird? Snowman (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the eggs have fewer pores, and retain water vapour better at low atmospheric pressure, but there is no RS I can find for this, so has to be omitted Unsigned comment - Jimfbleak - talk 18:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Found a reference which discusses fewer pores less water loss. 19:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me that does not explain the eggs oxygen needs. It might help completion and be interesting to add some hypotheses about the requirements of high-altitude nesting. Snowman (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why should oxygen be a problem? The air isn't that that thin. Adults can fly actively at high altitudes, which uses much more oxygen than an egg just sitting there. It's water loss which would prevent say a chicken egg hatching at that altitude Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the air is quite a bit thinner. It is a problem for humans going up mountains. I am wondering; "Why is oxygen not a problem for choughs at high altitude?". Snowman (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added The eggs of bird species that breed at high altitude also containing haemoglobin with a genetically determined high affinity for oxygen. plus ref Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Super. Hit the jackpot. What is different about the haemoglobin (or Hb)? - Is it a different structure Hb? - Is it a temporarily present form of Hb (like foetal haemoglobin)? - do adults and eggs both have the Hb? - Or is it just adjusted oxygen disassociation (a modified Haldane effect)? Snowman (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be the only accessible paper that's at all relevant. I doubt that it's anything structural since other birds can adapt to high altitudes, it's just that in high altitude the adaption is genetically programmed, whereas for lowland birds it's physiologically mediated Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You did well to find that. Snowman (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The White-winged Chough is 45cm long, so Bergmann's rule would predict that it would occupy a higher altitude that the smaller Alpine, but it does not. Why is this? Snowman (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As above, it's not a valid comparison, it's like comparing a lion with a Wild Cat - the species are insufficiently close. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that. Snowman (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where does P. g. digitatus live? Snowman (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional impression: I have a conflict of interest, because I edit bird pages. I think that it is a well-written article, which covers the topic well. I am not aware of any omissions which would prevent it becoming an FA; however, it is possible a number of small issues might arise during the course of the review. Snowman (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support(moral or otherwise as WP:Birds member) I too am a wikiproject birds editor and have been involved on and off here. I have looked over it a few times, corrected material and can't see anything else to fix or add. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - disclaimer: I passed this article's GAR; these comments are made with a more critical (read: nitpicky) FAC mentality :) Sasata (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy
there should be non-break spaces after the genus initial when giving the short form of the binomial (as well as the subspecies); also in cytochrome b, and F. laetus later
Done, didn't realise this was need even after nearly twenty FAs
it it necessary to include the flying altitude of the bird in the picture caption?
No
"The Australian White-winged Chough, Corcorax melanorhamphos, despite its similar bill shape and black plumage, is only distantly related to the true choughs: the resemblances are due to similar foraging methods." not following how the physical resemblance is due to behavioral similarity
And the ref doesn't support this, removed claim Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Description
wlink plumage
"37–39 cm (15–15 in) length" need a decimal place or something or this looks silly
I detest these convert templates, but other trust them unquestioningly. Hand calculated now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...but has a relatively longer tail and shorter wings than its relative." repeat of relative
proportionally
"The sexes are identical although the male averages slightly larger than the female" identical in appearance
done
need to mention what bird is in the right side of the image
"It is constructed on a ledge or in a cave or similar fissure in a cliff face, or in an abandoned building." -> maybe pluralize the locations so it doesn't sound like it's talking about once specific nest
The bulky nests are composed of roots, sticks and plant stems lined with grass, fine twiglets or hair, and may be constructed on ledges, in a cave or similar fissure in a cliff face, or in an abandoned building
"they are incubated by the female for 14–21 days to hatching" -> "prior to hatching"?
done
"and fledge in a further 29–31 days fom hatching." sp.; also, this fledge should be wlinked rather than the later occurrence in the next sentence
done
"The eggs of bird species that breed at high altitude also contain haemoglobin with a genetically determined high affinity for oxygen." Doesn't sound right to me to say the eggs have hemoglobin, when its the gooey contents inside that actually has it
The unhatched chicks (I don't think foetus applies to eggy species ]
wlink pellet, tree line
Done
"...the winter diet for the Red-billed Chough was almost exclusively Gagea bulbs" Bulbs are underground structures... does the bird dig them up and/or pull them out of the ground?
added dug from the ground
Status
"The Alpine Chough has an extensive, though sometimes fragmented, range, " don't think the comma is needed after fragmented
done
"and the reduced range of Red-billed chough in the islands" Chough not capitalized here, in contrast to elsewhere
done
ref formatting needs some cleanup, e.g. "pp." used for single pages; there's hyphens instead of an ndash in current refs 46 and 47; last ref has an extraneous colon; some refs have author initials, others full names; ref 15 needs genus italicized; inconsistent capitalization of Book titles; etc.
I've not finished these, will do so later. I'm not happy about having to standardise initials/full names, that's never been a requirement before. Thanks for reviewing, and i'll finish sometime today Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I've found them all. Note that where the common names of the two chough species appear in a journal title, I have kept the capitalisation used in the paper, since practice varies, so there are some "Alpine Chough" and some "alpine chough". I've also kept "Chough" in one title where it is a synonym for Red-billed Chough, so capitalisation is not wrong. As above, I don't think it is an MoS requirement to have just full names or just initials - it's never been raised as such at previous FACs. If it's a sticking point, I'll change it all to initials, but I'm reluctant to remove information, minor though it may be. Anyway, many thanks for taking the time to review this article, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My quibbles addressed, I now Support. Looks like a FA to me. Sasata (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the alt text that was added looks good. The "alt text" button at the upper right of this review article says that two images still need alt text, though: File:Pyrrhocoraxgraculusmap.png (please use the |range_map_alt= parameter of {{Taxobox}}, and please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance) and File:ChoughsDiff.svg.Eubulides (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Map now has alt text, the other image had alt text, but I'd put alt = instead of alt=, so hopefully OK now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It all looks good now; thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The toolbox reveals a few dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with good links, the new link to Systematic notes on Asian birds. 45. Types of the Corvidae works, but the link checker doesn't like it, not sure why Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - for a very well-written and engaging article. There are a few expressions that I would not have chosen to use, such as "large numbers of" (many) and "whilst" (while), but these are mainly personal preferences. Thanks, I enjoyed reading this. Graham ColmTalk 18:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Dohlen42vils alps 2006.jpg - It is unclear from the image description page who the copyright holder is. It seems that it is the uploader, but this needs to be made explicit. Please ask the uploader to clarify that is a self-made image.
File:Gould alpine chough.jpg - The license for this image claims PD by virtue of "life of the author plus 70 years". Please add death dates for the authors to establish this.
I've been editing this article for awhile now. I had it PR earlier this year, and it passed GA a few months ago. I've asked for some ce help recently, and have gotten a bit. Most of the article is based off of the very similar Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, which passed FAC earlier this year. I think we should be good to go, but I'm sure you will all find some problems. You always do :) And... JUDGE. --TorsodogTalk 22:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to strengthen the fair use rationales. Date formats are consistent Month Day, Year, which is good (I don't have to complain about that as I have with others recently :P ). Always nice to see a free submitted photo. More may come... --anoddname 00:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(part 2) So far, it looks good: you didn't neglect the business aspects (three-game contract etc.) this time, and what's in the lead is also in the article or infobox. I had replaced Neoseeker with IGN in the Rogue Squadron article; try to do that here as well, or use one of the other sources JimmyBlackwing mentioned. I'll do a fuller check soon or tomorrow. --anoddname 03:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(part 3) I was trying to find replacements for Neoseeker. IGN lists its N64 release date as Dec 14 and apparently reviewed it the next day, but GamePro, GameRankings (GameSpot), Metacritic, and another IGN page(!) all agree on a Dec 18 date. None appear to agree with Neoseeker. I'll change it to the GamePro date. --anoddname 14:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, I browsed yesterday, and there was a lot of discrepancy between release dates. The Dec 18th date looks good to me though. I'll do some searching later after work to try to find some reliable sources for the European release dates. --TorsodogTalk 14:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Full support I've now read the whole thing, and it has all an FA should. The prose is solid, concise, and original; the plot is not overly long; the cites are correct and consistent; and (thanks also to JimmyBlackwing) it draws correctly from a whole bunch of places for stats and opinions and all that. The sections cover all that they need to and more—I feel like an expert in the game now. :)
I can't verify the "January 8, 2001" publish date for ref 10; tell me where to find it or remove it. That's my last nit to pick, though. Hang the bling—Torsodog's dundiddit again. --anoddname 17:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm, I can't figure out where i got the 1/8/01 date, BUT it looks like the the real date should be April 18, 2001 according to this link (the page doesn't link to the archived version of the guide, but it is the same guide). And again, thanks for all the copy-editing help! --TorsodogTalk 18:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I guess I'm done! ...mumble grumble IGN and their inconsistent linking, archiving, and paywalling... --anoddname 18:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Reception section needs more reviews; IGN and GameSpot are cited over and over again, with barely a mention of other sources. For it to be considered comprehensive, you will need a significantly larger amount of review material. Links to Metacritic and GameRankings don't make up for this lack. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added an Extended Play review after scouring Internet Archive, but unless I find 10-year-old copies of NP or EGM, there isn't much else we can do here. I added as much as I could from GamePro's incredibly brief written review and PC Zone's written review is mostly a joke. I think that 4 cited reviews in the prose for the N64 version and 3 others for the PC version is enough to convey a general consensus of things. --TorsodogTalk 05:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also just added Eurogamer's PC review (they don't have an N64 review).
I still don't think it's enough. You can easily locate numerous, far higher quality sources in our Reference library. If you're unfamiliar with the project, I'll fill you in on where you can find the relevant reviews. Here, Pagrashtak states that he has a copy of nearly all Nintendo Power issues, even those not listed. Contact him and see if he has the one you're looking for. Here, Mitaphane lists that he has the Next Generation Magazine review of the game. Twas Now has access to the PC Gamer US review. There are also a couple of print reviews (EGM and Computer Games Magazine) over at the Online print archive. I recommend including these and removing the Eurogamer review, and most references to the IGN and GameSpot reviews. Eurogamer wasn't a particularly high quality source back then, and IGN and GameSpot were not nearly as important as they are now; their opinions circa-2000 don't carry as much weight as the above print sources. However, they were still more reliable than Eurogamer, so you can keep a few references to them, if you want. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check out what I can get from these resources. Thanks for the help. --TorsodogTalk 21:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section is looking better now, but it could use the Game Informer review to finish fleshing out the N64 reviews. I'll see if I can find it through Internet Archive; if not, I think you might be able to ask for scans of it at the Reference library. Also, I noticed that User:Mitaphane got back to you with Next Gen's review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the addition of NextGen's review, I think the PC paragraph looks great and is probably finished. If you can find the Game Informer review, let me know, but honestly I'm pretty happy with the amount of review sources at the moment! --TorsodogTalk 03:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright review: All OK. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the aspects I usually review.
Prose seems good. (Copybook examples of the use of hyphens, actually!) The linking is skillful. A few things I noticed:
"The game initially restricts the player to a particular craft for each level; however, after the player has completed a level, he or she can ...". I could see the "he or she" coming a mile off. Will you consider pluralising ("players" and "they"), or using the singular they?
"Upon" is a little lah-de-dah nowadays ("on completion"?).
Revert Coopwood resizing if you don't like the slightly larger size: the caption looks better that way, and it's a great pic. If we have free use, well, let's use.
But it's good that those copyright screenshots are tiny, for different reasons.
My, let's nab you to review game FACs yourself! Tony(talk) 13:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed upon→on. (Also added {{-}} tags to avoid broken layouts in large screen sizes and changed "Couruscant Encounter"→"Coruscant Encounter" because it would be an obvious typo whether in game or just our text.) The game is single-player, so I'll leave the change to "they" to Torsodog. --anoddname 15:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words, Tony! I been trying to get into the FAC review process lately. Maybe I'll take on a video game article as soon as I get a chance. And thanks to Odd Name for fixing up a few things I missed. As for the he/she/they issue, I'm fond of the singular "player", but also not all that crazy about "he or she" or the singular they. Instead I tried writing out the need for any of this all together. Thoughts?
"The game initially restricts the player to a particular craft for each level; however, after a level is completed, it can be replayed with any available craft that falls within its air, land or watercraft specification." --TorsodogTalk 18:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the sentence "Like the game's predecessor, Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, Battle for Naboo is a fast-paced, arcade-style action game." is misleading. It may give the reader the false impression that the game actually belongs in the Rogue Squadron series of games when it merely shares the same engine as the original Rogue Squadron. --Teancum (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Like developer Factor 5's prior work, Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, Battle for Naboo is a fast-paced, arcade-style action game."? It avoids calling it a predecessor but keeps the remaining comparisons. --anoddname 13:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better - except I would change "Like developer Factor 5's prior work" to "As with developer Factor 5's prior work" --Teancum (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't know how I feel about this change. The relationship between the two games is much more than simply games made by the same developer. Battle for Naboo's prequel setting obviously made a Rogue Squadron appearance impossible, but the game is still essentially a direct sequel to Rogue Squadron, and most reviewers viewed it as such. The engines are almost the same, the gameplay is almost exactly the same and the fictional universe is the same. It is a textbook example of a "spiritual sequel", which, IMO, makes "Rogue Squadron-predecessor" a valid descriptor of the game. --TorsodogTalk 21:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spiritual Sequel is fine as far as wording, but I don't think there's such a term as a "spiritual predecessor", which is how you would describe Rogue Squadron. A true sequel follows the story or characters, and this follows neither. As far as what it gets reworded to - I'm not particular on that. But though it shares gameplay and the engine it isn't an actual game in the series. I guess my point is that saying RS is its predecessor lumps it directly into the series. It just needs rewording to differentiate it from the actual series, yet show the reader it uses the RS engine and gameplay. --Teancum (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GamePro and IGN use terms such as "descendant" and "follow-up", respectively, to describe Battle for Naboo's relationship to Rogue Squadron. Would you be ok with trying to work one of these terms into the sentence instead? --TorsodogTalk 01:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up fits the best I think, as it's more ambiguous, which is actually a good thing here - the reader doesn't automatically lump it in with the Rogue Squadron series, but realizes there may be a relationship there. (If they keep reading they learn more about that relationship). --Teancum (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried out a new configuration. If you could, take a look and let me know what you think! --TorsodogTalk 23:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better, but the "semi-sequel" sentence is rather awkward. I simplified it to "Many reviews compared Battle for Naboo to Star Wars: Rogue Squadron", which does the same thing. --12:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I can get behind this. Looks good now. Thanks for working with me on this. --TorsodogTalk 13:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any other comments and concerns? It looks ready from here. --anoddname 05:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Full Support -- I think the article's ready now. --Teancum (talk) 16:58, 29 October 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 WP:CHIFTD, the WP:CHICAGO featured topic drive has three FAs and needs two more. In the prior nomination, at least two editors expressed that they had an interest in the article before it got closed out. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query Hi Tony, I don't quite follow the paragraph "Later, the Cycle Center worked well with an effort by the suburban Chicago-based McDonald's to encourage "balanced, active lifestyles" as part of the solution to help its customers become more healthy that the company committed to sponsoring the Cycle Center."
OK I understand now and have tweaked slightly. ϢereSpielChequers 18:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normally we don't include pricing info, and I was wondering why this article should be an exception?
If you are talking about the paragraph in membership, I think it is relevant and informative because this is a novel concept that only a few cities in the world have developed. The reader is probably wondering "How much does it cost" to be a member. This is not like the price of a common item. Costs of uncommon items are not so uncommon on WP.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are various mentions including deeply discounted repair, though I take your point about novelty, but perhaps other reviewers have a view on this?ϢereSpielChequers 18:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked WP:NOPRICES which says in part Wikipedia articles are not: Sales catalogs, therefore product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention. Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, and historical discussion of economic inflation. On the other hand, street prices are trivia that can vary widely from place to place and over time. Therefore, articles discussing products currently on sale should not quote street prices. In addition, Wikipedia is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product across different countries or regions. So the question is how well are the prices sourced, and is there a justified reason for their mention? Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the issue is the sourcing for this subject. The question is the use considered encyclopedic. IMO, it is, but the topic is at issue for debate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I feel about ALL of the pricing information yet, but I do think that the price of tours in the "Tours" section is unnecessary. As for the paragraph in the "Membership" section, give me a bit more to think about it. --TorsodogTalk 02:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the cost of membership is OK (as it is unusual and I would have no idea otherwise). I suggest changing the second sentence to When the Cycle Center was renamed in 2006, it had an approximate membership of 500 cyclists, who each paid either the same monthly dues or $99 annually.Ruhrfisch><>°° 16:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This suggestion has three parts. 1.) removing "for access to the Cycle Center's offerings" from the end of the sentence, which I concur with; 2.) changing "annual $99 dues" to "$99 annually", which is no big deal; and changing "monthly $15 dues" to "the same monthly dues", which I disagree with. I will make the other two parts of the change.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now, it reads "monthly $15 dues or $99 annually," which seems off. I am changing it to "dues of $15 monthly or $99 annually".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the pricing information is alright how it is now. My only concern is if/when prices fluctuate in the future, each change should not be noted. If it gets overwhelming, I think a non-specific price statement regarding fees should be used. Same goes for the locker prices. --TorsodogTalk 18:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also the paragraph "Since McDonald's is providing a healthier menu and fostering grade school physical education in an effort to help its customers improve their health, sponsoring bicycle and exercise activity in the park augments the company's other initiatives" might be better put as McDonalds contends that...ϢereSpielChequers 16:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was also wondering about the cycle parking. The picture "Back of Cycle Center" shows an open single story system, assuming this is some sort of overspill unheated low security system it might be better to explain that or have this after the photos of the secure parking. ϢereSpielChequers 18:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point of that picture is to have a picture of the front and the back of the building. The fact that the outdoor open air parking racks are visible is sort of a coincidence of ancillary importance, IMO. The secondary sources do not make much of a point of these bike racks so I don't think our article should either.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've linked to wagon in the hire section, I'm assuming this is some special bike type of wagon? ϢereSpielChequers 22:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review as of this version - I have removed some extraneous images from the article. All of the images check out. I would suggest fiddling with the map a bit. The text is hard to read in places, as it overlaps other text. Awadewit (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have swapped out the old map for a new image map diff. Is this better? Ruhrfisch><>°° 14:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made a new version with larger labels of the map. It is in McDonald's Cycle Center at 350 pixels wide, Chase Promenade at 400 pixels wide, and in Lurie Garden at 300 pixels wide. The original map it replaced was 450 pixels wide. Ruhrfisch><>°° 16:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to use the largest version that Awadewit does not object to, but will accept using the 300 px version throughout the Millennium Park articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The new map looks fine on my setup. Awadewit (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the issue above, the original map was 450 px and three smaller versions have been created. You said the new 350 is fine. What do you think of the 300 and 400 px versions? Keep in mind the entire Good Topic uses this map.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to choose, I would choose 400. Awadewit (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment (Ruhrfisch) I plan to copy edit this. I also made the map Awadewit refers to above and on all the monitors I have checked it on, the text does not overlap. Could you provide more information please? Ruhrfisch><>°° 16:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you are requesting her screen settings (resolution width in particular).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if it were a Mac vs PC issue. I was also hoping she could say specifically what words / letters overlapped. Ruhrfisch><>°° 16:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I use a Linux/Firefox setup on one computer with a rather large size for the font. Interestingly, when I enlarge on my Windows/Chrome setup, the text does not overlap. I'm not sure what the problem is. Awadewit (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that if there is a particular common setup that will have difficulty with articles with this map, we should attempt ot resolve it. If you do something unusual with your computer, then you should be use to having problems like this. It seems that with this template in three recently-promoted FACs, that it is unlikely that there is a problem needing serious action. We need to be sure of this however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't usually have problems like this and I don't think we should have images that are messy when they get bigger. :) Awadewit (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Large font size is vague. Tell us your screen resolution and we can examine the issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to replicate that setting. Are you using a zoom to control the font?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I use the zoom on Firefox to control the font. Awadewit (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It will take me a while as I have never made one, but I could try to make a png map with labels and a link map (not sure that is even the right name) so just clicking on the map takes you to the article. Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I meant that I couuld make an Image map version of this - see List_of_Kentucky_counties#Clickable_map for an example of what I mean. The problem is that the software overlays linked text and it overlaps. In an image map I would make a version with the labels built in and the code would link regions to the articles. I have never done this, so I have no idea how hard or easy it will be. Have to finish copyediting this first. Ruhrfisch><>°° 11:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(out) I have finished my copyedit - while there are still a few more parenthetical statements than I would idally like, I am OK with supporting this for FA now and have changed my comment to support above. I will work on the image map next but it will likely take me a few days. Ruhrfisch><>°° 21:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support on Sourcing - after the last FAC ended, most of the sourcing issues were resolved. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional support – I made a few cleanup changes several days ago, and the article struck me as a solid read then. I'm sure Ruhrfisch's copy-editing will make it even better, but I'm waiting to read it afterwards before offering full support. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Reads well, good neutral tone, very informative, and very well structured. Darn good article! Pknkly (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This was ready last time around after several of us helped copy edit it, especially now since the minor issues have now been addressed....Himalayan 19:16, 31 October 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 is the article's second nomination. The first nomination closed with 2 supports (counting the nominator) and no explicit opposes, but one editor commented about the prose needing work. I listed the article for peer review, which garnered a few improvements. I am now re-listing in hopes of getting more feedback and seeing the article promoted to FA. Acdixon(talk • contribs • count) 21:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright review: No issues. NW(Talk) 23:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I thought this was good enough to be promoted last time (and I'm gratified to see that both peer reviewers agreed with me that the prose was good). Steve Smith (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Duh, missed this last time. Need a retrieved on date for the Biographical Directory of the United States Congregss Ref. Really, this reference doesn't match the rest of your references, and I suggest dropping the COngressional Bio template and formatting it like any other website so that it is consistent with the other references.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My only minor question is: do the reliable sources say anything about what happened to his wife and the other son? If so, that could be included for completeness.hamiltonstone (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not the ones I've seen. If there is one or more that does, I haven't found it/them. Agree it would be inclusion-worthy if there were anything. Acdixon(talk • contribs • count) 14:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with one minor comment... "He was the state's first popularly elected senator following passage of the Seventeenth Amendment." The sentence is a little unclear. A reader not familiar with the history might question whether you meant the first elected senator after passage of the 17th (not having clicked through to see what the 17th amendment did), or the first senator who was elected after such elections were required by the 17th. Not sure how best to reword it. Geraldk (talk) 17:05, 28 October 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 is an article I have spent considerable time working on during the last four months. I have read three books on the subject, and did a significant amount of research on the topic. I started working on the article as part of my personal project on expanding all the articles for the Governors of Indiana. The article is comprehensive, well sourced, and has been through two thorough GA reviews, and a number of copy edits. Marshall was the VP under Woodrow Wilson and has a facinating story, and played an important role (or rather a lack of a role which was in itself a role) in the shaping the direction of the USA foreign policy following World War I. I believe this article satisfies the FA criteria, and is worthy of the star. I will work to quickly resolve any issues that may arise and look forward to any feedback. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 18:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per criterion 3:
File:VPthomasrmarshall.JPG - WP:IUP - Requires a verifiable source. A hitherto deleted en.wiki page is not acceptable. How can we verify pre-1.1.1923 publication?
I have looked into this image and cannot locate its source with certainty. It is likely from the Indiana Historical Society, and judging by his appearance would probably be from about 1908. He appears much older looking in his vice presidential portraits. I have removed the image for now, until its source can be determined. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 01:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Thomas R. Marshall Signature.svg - Requires a verifiable source. "Own work" is not true, as this is the work of Marshall, not the uploader. License is correct, however.
Found the signature located in his autobiography. Added to image page. 01:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The emblem on the plaque would indicate it was placed by the Daughter's of the American Revolution. I don't believe a copyright would be placed on such a plaque, as there are tens of thousands of such placed all over the place to mark notable sites. I have removed the image for now. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 01:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright would apply to the text, not the plague as an object. Copyright is generated merely by fixing a creative work (here, prose) into a fixed medium; one does not need to deliberately "place" it. Copyright is not removed solely by virtue of being situated in a public location in jurisdictions without freedom of panorama (the US, as I said, is such a jurisdiction). Эlcobbolatalk 02:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although Losey may not have been a government employee the original work is now owned by, and copied from the Library of Congress. Wouldn't that make it now a US Federal Government work? What copyright would propose using? There is no evidence that is was ever published from what I see on the LOC. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 01:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The LoC is merely an archive. It does not necessarily own the copyright to images therein (indeed, it hosts many images that are still under copyright). Further, although the federal government cannot claim copyright on its own works, it can claim copyright on works transferred from others (USC 17 § 105 is very explicit about this). The LoC page states there are no known restrictions, but not the reason therefor. Perhaps it would be best to contact the LoC. Эlcobbolatalk 02:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the template on that image. The LoC is quite good about saying "No known restrictions on publication" only when the image is PD or PD-equivalent. (I assume the LoC is not perfect in this respect, but it's certainly good enough for Wikipedia.) It should be OK to use this image here. Eubulides (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you. I have tried to get my mind around the licensing on images for ages. There is no clear page that explains things in laymans terms anywhere, and then gives you the approprate tag to place on the page (at least that I have found. and I have looked), and the upload wizards are just short of useless unless you already know what you are doing. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 12:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although it doesn't address the (ever changing) upload wizard, you might find this dispatch helpful. Эlcobbolatalk 14:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:TRMarshall-wife.jpg - Bain, the author, died in 1944. Why is a license tag claiming 70 years have past since his death being used?
This is image is also from the LOC. What template do propse to change it to? —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 01:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Truth be told, after all that had to be fixed here, I was rather hoping to use this one to teach to fish, rather than give a fish. Thanks, though. Эlcobbolatalk 23:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Robert Lansing.jpg - Source is a deadlink. Who is the author and how can we verify he/she has been dead 70 years, per the license tag? ("Magnus Manske" is the uploader, not the author.)Эlcobbolatalk 19:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot locate the source.. removed from article, it is not necessary to have. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 01:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want an image of Lansing, I found and uploaded File:Robert Lansing1.jpg. I'll try to find a source for the other. Эlcobbolatalk 02:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that your concerns have been addressed. Do you still oppose this nomination? —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 12:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alt text done; thanks.Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT.Eubulides (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The existing alt text mostly just repeats the caption. Alt text should focus on describing the image itself (the part that visually impaired readers cannot see) and should not repeat the caption (which is for both sighted and visually impaired readers). For example, generally speaking alt text should not contain proper names, since they belong in the caption. However, it's OK for the lead image to describe Marshall's appearance, and then for later images to just say "Marshall" if there's nothing specially different about his appearance there. Please see WP:ALT#Repetition and WP:ALT#Portraits for more.
The lead image should say what Marshall looked like; currently the visually impaired reader is given no clue about his appearance.
I have expanded the descriptions. It kind of hard to describe a photo of a person though. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 21:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:ALT#Portraits for advice and examples about alt text for portraits. I'm afraid that considerably more work needs to be done here. The lead image's alt text "A bust of Thomas R. Marshall sitting in his senate office" has several problems: it's not a bust, it's not clear just from the picture that it's Marshall or that he's sitting in his senate office (see WP:ALT#Verifiability), and it says nothing about what he looks like. Please rewrite it to mention that mustache (wow!), the pince-nez, the collar and coat, and (most especially) the determined expression. The background isn't that important. There are similar problems with File:Jacob Piatt Dunn.JPG, File:Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Harris & Ewing bw photo portrait, 1919.jpg, File:Thomas R. Marshall in his Senate office.jpg, File:TRMarshall-wife.jpg, File:MarshallGrave.jpg: all these images have alt text that substantially repeats the caption, and all that repetition should be removed as per WP:ALT#Repetition and then replaced with text that says what the image looks like (as opposed to names of objects or people). Also, the phrase "around the Indiana Democratic headquarters in Indianapolis as Samuel Ralston delivers" needs to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability, as these details are not immediately verifiable from the image.Eubulides (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have expanded the alt tags even more. They are pretty wordy I think; whats your opinion? But they are about as descriptive as I can make them. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 02:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The alt text is much improved, thanks. The longest is a bit wordy but it's much better than it was when it was too terse. We're almost there. Two things, though. First, please remove the proper names from the alt text, as they duplicate info that's in the caption; as per WP:ALT#Repetition alt text should not repeat what's in the caption. (As an exception, it's OK for later images to say "Marshall" to refer to Marshall, as the lead image establishes his apperance; see WP:ALT#Portraits.) Also, much of the identification can't be verified simply by looking at the image, which is a problem as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. Proper names and/or ID that should be removed include "Thomas R. Marshall's", "Indiana Statehouse in Indianapolis, Indiana", "Jacob Piatt Dunn", "Indiana Democratic headquarters in Indianapolis as Samuel Ralston", "President Woodrow Wilson", "United States Capitol building in Washington D.C.", "His wife", "Thomas Marshall's and family sepulcher;". Second, please fix the spelling and punctuation and grammar, as there are currently several errors along those lines, e.g., "head an shoulders", "pin-neck collar" (what's that?), "tie;" (sentences should end in periods), "Indiana; A three", "peice". Thanks.Eubulides (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I tweaked it a bit more, and it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I took the liberty of correcting three small reference errors, the two about newspaper and magazine titles being italicised should be remembered for your next FAC!) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- an excellent, well-written article. My only suggestion would be that the lead is a bit lengthy. Coemgenus 15:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have tightened up a bit and removed a few unneeded sentances. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 17:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now,Comments, very close to support, 2a. I've only reviewed the lead, and plan on going through the rest as I have time, but the prose gives no evidence of being anywhere near ready. Here's some of what I was talking about:
"Marshall successfully had the body adopt its first procedural rule that allowed filibusters to be ended by a two-thirds majority vote–a variation of this important rule that still remains in effect." The bit after the dash makes no sense. As far as I can tell, the "that" is superfluous, but I stand open to clarification as to what meaning was actually intended.
"Marshall was urged to become acting president by many officials, including cabinet officials and Congressional leaders; but Marshall refused to forcibly assume the Presidency for fear of setting a precedent." Misused semi-colon.
Redundancy: "Marshall successfully had the body adopt its first procedural rule..." (if it wasn't successful, he didn't really have the body adopt it), "...he opened a new Indianapolis law practice..." (what other kind of law practice does one open?)
It is worth indicating it was not a continuation of his old law firm with old partner, but instead a new law firm. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 13:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bloat: "...helped him later secure the nomination and win the election to serve as Governor of Indiana." (or, in succinct-speak, "helped him later win election as Governor of Indiana"), "To remedy the situation and enable critical wartime legislation to be passed..."
Passive voice: "Marshall was urged to become acting president by many officials..."
I'm going to try to copyedit the entire article, though I make no promises, but I think it needs at least one other full copyedit as well. Steve Smith (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...sat on both of their laps for the course the debate..." What does this mean? He sat on their laps during the debate itself? If so, "both" should still go, as presumably he only sat on one lap at a time.
When Lincoln spoke he sat on Douglas lap, when Douglas spoke he sat on Lincolns lap. I have clarified this. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 13:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"He remained an active mason until his death, serving on several different charitable boards." Are these masonic charities? If not, the sentence should probably be reconfigured.Steve Smith (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, ther are the boards of masonic organizations that dealt with charity. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 13:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back on my comments, I think I must have been in a bad mood last night. I stand by my statement that the article needs a lot of work (on the prose - the research and organization are top-notch), but I could certainly have communicated that in a pleasanter manner. My apologies, and kudos to you for graciously receiving even ungracious criticism. Anyway, I'm continuing my copyedit.
No need to apoligize! A critical review is by far the most valuable to me, my goal being the improvement of articles. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 14:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"He successfully advocated the passage of a child labor law and anti-corruption legislation, but was unsuccessful in passing most of his progressive platform through the state legislature or getting the legislature to call a convention to rewrite the state constitution to expand the government’s regulatory powers." This sentence is too long, and I'm not exactly sure what the second part means (is it related to the first part?). Given that the entire next section deals with his constitutional initiative, does it need to be mentioned here?
I guess that is a bit confusing since it expects the reader to have a grasp of the progressive platform. The two items he suceeded in passing where part of that platform, but everythign else in the platform he failed to achieve. Most of it he was attempting to achieve through the writing of the new consitution, which he saw as a way to cirumvent the General Assembly and take the issues directly to the voters, who he was convinced to support the measure. I broke it up, and tied the two parts together better. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 14:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...had it been adopted, large parts would have probably been ruled unconstitutional by the federal courts." I'd suggest attributing this; without attribution, it strikes me as POV. If it's the opinion of a consensus of legal experts, and you have the sources to demonstrate that, describe it as such a consensus.
Point taken, I attriubted to quotes to their makers directly. Although i have not explicity read it, it does seem to be a consensus though. Had he got the consitution passed, at least two sections would have been unconsitutional and foricibly repealed by the federal court, leaving the state in a bad sitution and handicapping the government in adopting new legislation, since he delegated that to the electorate in his consitution. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 14:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting a little ahead of myself with this one, but should the boxes detailing the results of the 1912 and 1916 elections include the names of the presidential nominees, maybe in parentheses? It seems a little odd to say that Marshall beat Johnson by two million votes, when it seems like what actually happened was that Wilson beat Taft. I understand the technicalities involved, and I know it's no more technically correct to say that Wilson beat Taft than to say that Marshall beat Johnson, but it seems like context that the reader might find useful.Steve Smith (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be useful. I haved aded the presidents into the boxes. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 14:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished a first run copyedit. I'll try another in a few days once I have some more distance from the article. In the meantime, I'd repeat my urging that you try to find another hitherto uninvolved copyeditor. About 98% of the work required to make this article featured has been done, and it would be a tragedy to see it fail due to insufficient copyediting. One specific issue that you should deal with is the inconsistency in the capitalization of positions like "Vice President". Steve Smith (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will see if I can find a willing copy editor. To be honest though, they are our rarest editors and frequently busy on other things, I find. I have never had much luck in getting assistance in that department. Thanks for efforts to copy edit the article! It is appreciated. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 03:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting very close. I've done another copyedit, and I think the prose is close to there, but I'd feel more comfortable supporting if another pair of uninvolved eyes looked it over, as I've become quite close to the article. A few remaining points:
The inconsistent capitalization of positions like governor and vice president, as well as presidency, and the inconsistent hyphenation of "vice presidency", need to be fixed.
I've made a couple of other changes. I left "Vice President" capitalized in Marshall's quote in the first paragraph of "Legacy", even though it's inconsistent with the rest of the article, because I presume it's like that to keep the quote transcription faithful. Steve Smith (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...they believed that to go through the procedure while his parents were still living would appear awkward to the public." "Awkward" seems, well, awkward. Is there a better adjective? "Questionable"? "Scandalous"?
Ackward is the word used by the source. Embarrassing would probably be the next closest adjective. The source indicates they just wanted to keep the situation private. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 04:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead suggests that it was a personal and ideological rift that caused Wilson to move Marshall's office, while the body says it's because Marshall made ill-advised jokes to passers by.
The event that was the final trigger was the jokes to passers by, and those on top of many other such incidents. This was coupled with the the idealogical rift. I have changed the wording in the lead to better clarify this. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 04:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considerably more optimistic now than I was previously that I will be able to support this. Steve Smith (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a couple requests and Reywas92 has made a generous offer. So hopefully someone will soon oblige. :) —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 04:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, one more thing (it never ends...). As I understand it, the advent of infoboxes made succession boxes obsolete, but this article contains both. This obviously isn't something worth holding up an FAC over (at least, I don't think it is), but I'm wondering if there's a reason. This article might already be good enough to earn my support, and I've struck my oppose, but I'm going to way a day or two before looking at the prose again with fresh eyes, to make sure it's as good as I think it is now. Steve Smith (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree they are redundant. They are on almost every US politician article I have ever edited though, so I have always left them. (The succession boxes are about the only part of the article that is still the same as when I started editting). I have hidden the boxes for now while I look for a a guideline for this. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)
Support. I think we're there, though I'd still welcome another copyeditor's participation. Steve Smith (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really like File:VPthomasrmarshall.JPG, but I have not been able to locate a source for the image. I think it is from the Indiana Historical Society, which is a private organization. And judging by his appearance it is almost certainly pre-1923. I would guess it to be about 1902, but I need to locate something that says that before it can go in the article. File:Thomas Marshall, bain photo portrait, circa 1912.jpg looks very good I hadn't seen it before. It is LoC, so we could it instead. You are also more than welcome to try your hand at copy editting! —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 13:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments: "On settling in Princeton, Indiana, Marshall was enrolled in public school for the first time." -> "Upon settling in Princeton, Indiana, Marshall was enrolled in public school." Use upon, and it isn't notable that it was the first time because he was only six or so anyway, right?
For the caption "The Indiana Statehouse in Indianapolis, Indiana", it should be a given that it's in Indianapolis.
To me it is certainly given, but I am not sure if a reader would know that. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 15:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I wouldn't have been able to name the capital of Indiana (though I'd probably have guessed Indianapolis), and I think I'm more conversant than your average non-American with American geography. Steve Smith (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I meant to write that it's a given that it's in Indiana, so it could just say "The Indiana Statehouse in Indianapolis". Reywas92Talk 16:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I see what you mean now. I have removed that, it was redundant. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 17:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the electoral history, I think the Presidential elction boxes should clarify that the first name listed is for Vice President, and that they should include electoral votes.
I couldn't figure out how to add the electorial votes to the infoboxes, so I changed to a more complex one. It doesn't have a parementer for a title though, but I think it is still an improvement. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 15:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, but also big and cluttered. I was actually thinking the original template with the number of electoral votes in parentheses next to the popular, but whatever you think. Reywas92Talk 15:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should this link, although short, be included? And can you use that portrait? I think it's old enough.
I thought I already had that link on there, but I didn't! I will add it. I considered the image before, but it is not a really good photograph of the portrait, it looks really dark, and you can only make out about half the detail. I am going to Indy in the winter, I intend to make a photo trip out of it, I will try and get a good picutre of the portrait. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 15:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made some basic copyedits own my own, and I find it fantastic overall! Reywas92Talk 21:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Charles' defense, I'm the one who changed "upon" to "on". I have no particular preference for one over the other, besides a general belief that fewer syllables is better, but I've seen Tony1 recommend that change in other FACs, and I figure he's the pro. Steve Smith (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but syllables don't override meaning. See definition 4 [10]. Reywas92Talk 00:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I wasn't disputing that "upon" is correct, but see definition 3 [11]. Steve Smith (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's different. "It happened on Sunday" would be right, but not "Marshall was enrolled in public school on settling in Indiana." Reywas92Talk 15:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain the difference between its usage in this article and the example given on the linked page, "on arriving home, I found your letter"? Steve Smith (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't think that sounds right either. Surely you wouldn't say its converse "I found your letter on arriving home." "I found your letter upon arriving home" makes more sense, as on can also imply about. Reywas92Talk 16:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both sound fine to me. According to dictionaries, both are correct; it comes down to personal preference. My preference, as well as Tony1's, is for "on" (though in cases where "on" would create ambiguity, as in the ones you cite above, I'd go with "upon"; ambiguity's not an issue here, though). Yours is for "upon". It's not worth holding up the FAC either way. Steve Smith (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have fixed all problems since the first nomination, considering the first nomination only failed because of a lack of input; there was one support and no opposes. I would recommend reading the nomination at the first for a more comprehensive nomination. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text, dabs, sources, and images reviewed in the earlier FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
Support - I thought you said this article was boring! It's quite engaging once you get into it.
Nitpick alert: Per my own writing style, I'd write the lead as this (you don't have to change it if you're already satisfied with your own version: The Overman Committee was a special subcommittee under the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in the United States Senate chaired by North Carolina Democratic Senator Lee Slater Overman. Operating from September 1918 to June 1919, the subcommittee investigated German as well as Bolshevik elements in the United States.
Initial investigation: Many criticized the BOI's actions some even labeling the actions "criminal". - redundancy
(same as above) The Bureau's investigation methods were often extremely faulty.[15] - faulty? How so?
The prose is definitely at an FA level and since I cannot judge through the sources (I know practically nothing about government subcommittees) of the topic I have to trust it is comprehensive. Hope this FAC goes better than the last one, ceranthor 23:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on your talk page, I really appreciate the review. I've changed the intro to your suggestion. As for the last two points, I have changed the two sentences to this:
"Many attacked the BOI's actions. The Bureau's investigation methods were often extremely faulty. The Committee heard testimony that the Bureau had not conducted basic background checks of the accused and had not read source material they presented to the Committee.[ref]"
I hope that improves them (hopefully it's not too choppy). Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 1c grounds. Clark (1920) and NAM (US) (1913) should be moved to Primary sources. As a matter of preference, I generally prefer to see Newspapers cited in the bibliography if articles from them are used, and heavily cited newspaper items (not relevant here except for some of the page spreads) cited specifically. Occasional error in citations "^ .United States Congress, Bolshevik Propaganda, p. 475" leading dot on author. See also: capitalisation divergence with other uses "Volume 1 and volume 2". Citation lacks spacing, "June 15, 1919.Accessed October 9, 2008.". Images are crowded. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I have made the copyedit suggestions (extra period, capitalization, access date problems, moved one image). However, I am confused by your two referencing comments. I've moved the NAM reference, but why is the Clark reference a primary source? Also, I apologize, but I don't understand your suggestion regarding the newspaper sources. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clark (1920) lacks historical distance from the incidents he is cataloguing. (His work's portion on the Overman committee is in the polemical mode). This lack of historical distance means that he is an involved contributor, much like a journalist reporting a historical event is a primary source within the meaning of history. Regarding the newspaper articles, "^ a b c d e "Senators Tell What Bolshevism in America Means". The New York Times. June 15, 1919. Retrieved October 9, 2008." should probably be cited as a primary source due to the extensive use made of that particular article. The two newspapers should be added to the bibliography as sources, without referencing particular articles, unless they're heavily used (according to my style recommendation), as in (newline)The New York Times (newline)Casa Grande Valley Dispatch for bonus points you could add place of publication, and years used. Also your citation, ""Senators Denounce Lawlessness". Casa Grande Valley Dispatch. July 18, 1919. Retrieved October 9, 2008." should italicise Casa Grande Valley Dispatch if you're italicising The New York Times. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved Clark, and I think I did what you meant for all the newspaper references (I just did it for all of them for the sake of consistency). Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — It is a complete and well-written article. It surveys the scope of its subject and fairly presents the information required.—Markles 21:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now,Pending a thorough review of the prose, I may be ready to support. 1a and 1b. There might be an FA here, but it's not ready yet. Some issues:
The article does not currently do a good job of placing its statements in context. I provide some examples of this below, but in general I'd suggest going through the article and imagining that you have no familiarity with this period of U.S. history, and providing such background information—either in prose or using wikilinks—as might be necessary to make the article useful to you.
To follow up on the last point, there are quite a few redlinked names in the article. That's not a bad thing in and of itself, but as long as there's no article for the reader to click on in order to learn more, it would be helpful to provide a brief mention in this article about who those people are.
It's less the redlinks to which I object than it is the lack of context around some of the names. There's a lot of information given on Stevenson in the article, so he's not a problem. Fitzpatrick is pretty incidental to the article, so he's not really a problem. But we're told nothing about Humes other than that he wrote the report, and nothing about Williams other than that he gave a speech. I touch on these points more later on, but this is the sort of thing I'm talking about when I say that many of the names lack context. Steve Smith (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The prose is quite bloated and sometimes a little stiled; with due respect to the supporters, I'm not sure how they concluded that it was at an FA level. Besides the excess verbiage, there were a number of typos and outright grammatical errors in the version that I reviewed. I've performed a copyedit; ideally, I think there'd be another thorough one by somebody previously uninvolved.
Why is Humes linked? We're not really given any indication of who he is, beyond the guy who compiled the report. Was he a subcommittee staff member? Does he likely clear WP:N?
Delinked.
If he's not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, why is he mentioned in the lead? If he's going to be mentioned in the lead, I'd expect to see some indication of why his authorship of the report is noteworthy. Steve Smith (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's not notable enough for a Wikipedia article (he'd fall under WP:ONEVENT), but shouldn't the Overman Committee article give as much information as possible? Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to including it in the article; it's the lead that I doubt needs it. Steve Smith (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, and I agree now. I've removed it from the lead, but it is still down somewhere in the report section. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are some very short sections. Have you considered merging some of them? I think it would be possible to merge, for example, "The Committee" and "Background" to create a new (still very short) section called something like "Creation".
I've merged "The Committee" section into the "Background" section. Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"One meeting in particular, held at the Poli Theater in Washington, DC, created much because of a speech given by Albert Rhys Williams." This needs to either be placed in some context or removed, as right now it adds nothing.
I do not understand. It was a reason for the Senate's decision to expand the Committee's powers. I can still remove it though, if you, as a third party, find it unnecessary/confusing. It is mentioned in multiple sources.
I'd rather see elaboration than removal, especially if multiple sources mention it. The trouble is that all we know is some guy gave a speech at some theater; we know nothing about the person who gave the speech, what was said in the speech, or how it influenced the Senate to expand the committee's powers. Without that detail, the sentence does not provide the reader with any useful information. Steve Smith (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "One meeting in particular, held at the Poli Theater in Washington, DC, became controversial and widely publicized because of a radical speech given by Albert Rhys Williams. At this meeting he allegedly said, "America sooner or later is going to accept the Soviet Government."
Much better. Is there anything that you can use to describe Williams? Something like "...because of a radical speech given by union leader Alfred Rhys Williams..."? Steve Smith (talk) 02:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to clarify by editing it to explain that Nebraska was the last state necessary and by editing the last sentence of the paragraph to clarify.
"...has been described by some historians..." Does the source cited really support that several historians said this? If not, don't be afraid to reword to "...has been described by University of Armpitville historian Bob Weathermucker..."
Changed to note specific historian.
"This confluence of events convinced the members of Congress that there was a strong German-Bolshevist link." I'm not clear on how the confluence of events convinced Congress of this; the only one of the events that seems to provide evidence of such a link is Stevenson's testimony. Could you expand on how the other events convinced Congress of this link?
At first your comment here confused me, but after rereading the entire section I completely understand your point. I've changed it to "This confluence of events led the members of Congress to believe that there was a German-Bolshevist link and that the Bolshevist threat to the United States was real."
The second boxquote lacks context, both in terms of who the "Mr. Williams" speaking is and in terms of the significance of the testimony, which doesn't seem to be addressed elsewhere in the article.
It was quoted in Lowenthal; it was typical of what how the hearings went and what those were testifying said.
"...and the registration of private organizations." What does this mean?
I couldn't figure it out either, I had pretty much quoted that phrase word for word from the source. So I just deleted it and added another recommendation mentioned in a different source that I hadn't put in there before for some (?) reason.
"The Overman Committee was unwilling to take any concrete steps to combat extremism..." The Committee itself appears not to have taken any concrete steps because it was not charged with doing so. It does, if the previous section is to be believed, seem to have recommended a number of concrete steps, which makes this quote appear misleading.
Changed to "The Overman Committee did not achieve any lasting reforms".
I'd suggest moving "Criticism" to before "Aftermath", as the latter seems to provide a better conclusion to the article.
Done.
I think there's an FA here, but I'm not sure it will emerge over the course of this nomination. Keep at it, though - this is an excellent start. Steve Smith (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to the rest of the points tomorrow (I hope). Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What would you like to see regarding additional context? I tried to add context in weak areas that I could see during my copypedit, but is there anywhere else the article could be improved? Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think we're there, though I also think it could still benefit from one more solid copyedit from somebody hitherto uninvolved. Steve Smith (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, someone else added that link since the FAC started. (fixed) Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think this is a comprehensive and well-written article on an interesting period of American history. I have only one minor niggle. I'd prefer it if the Background section started with the more accurate "World War I, in which Great Britain and its allies fought the German Empire ...", but I suppose I can live with the current version. ;-) --MalleusFatuorum 21:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or how about "In the last years of World War I, in which the United States fought..."? Steve Smith (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't serious. Just my idea of a joke. --MalleusFatuorum 02:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't serious either; mine was intended to take a shot at the Yanks for sitting most of the thing out (though, it being World War I, that might make them the smart ones). Steve Smith (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): ChrisO (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
November 9th 2009 is the 20th anniversary of a hugely important historical event - the fall of the Berlin Wall and the opening of the border between East and West Germany. During August-September 2009 I went to Germany and travelled nearly the full length of the former border, taking a large number of photographs and doing a lot of on-the-ground research over the course of several weeks. At the same time I rewrote and greatly expanded the inner German border article to provide a comprehensive overview of the history, structure, operation and eventual fall of the Iron Curtain in Germany.
The article has already been through a peer review courtesy of the military history WikiProject. In view of the short time between now and November 9th, which would be the ideal day to feature this article on the Main Page, I've decided to forgo the A-class review stage and skip directly to a Featured Article review. I'd be grateful for comments. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karanacs (talk • contribs) 17:54, October 28, 2009
Support – not just FA status, but I believe one of our very best FAs. Well written, looks superbly researched, and truly encyclopedic in scope. (Encyclopædia Britannica has nothing like this on this topic.) Getting it on the main page on Nov. 9 would be a bonus. --JN466 23:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is a superb job. As Jayen wrote above, featuring this article on the main page on Nov 9 would be fantastic. I first read this in the assessment process at the Germany project, where it sat in the backlog for a while (we were 57 articles behind); then I thought it well researched, documented, illustrated, maps, photos, diagrams, and well written. Since then, the article has undergone Military History peer review, and has improved even over its initial shape, which was very good. It is long, but a fascinating article to read. I fully support. I'm sure a few issues will come up; the editor has been diligent in attending to details and quibbles etc., to date, so I'm sure he will continue this cooperation. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- this is the best FAC I've ever read. The writing is excellent, the subject is compelling, and the citations seem to be plentiful and accurate. Prost! Coemgenus 16:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just a quick point: per MoS, subheadings should not begin with "The". Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never really understood the rationale for that part of the MoS... However, I've got rid of "The" from the subheadings. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This represents Wikipedia at its best - excellent! Just a couple of minor niggles: Firstly, in the lead reference is made to 'electrified alarms', which doesn't quite sound right to me - perhaps 'alarmed fences' or something along those lines? Also, I notice some inconsistency in the way translation from German to English is shown. The majority of text is displayed German (English), but I noticed several instances of English (German). Just my opinions, of course, and even with those minor isses I'm more than happy to Support this FAC. DB 103 245-7 Talk 00:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken out "electrified". I'll review the German/English thing - most of the inconsistencies have already been tidied up but I've retained a few German-first bits for stylistic reasons. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fifelfoo
Support: 1c. Amazing 1c. Also the most beautiful reference handling I've seen in a while, of some of the most beautiful research I've seen on Wiki in a while. Very Very Very Strong Approval of the work. Decline09:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Its a great article. If the article nominator agrees with my points, I'm happy for them to <strike> my points as they fix. If the article nominator contests or disagrees with my points, I'd rather they didn't touch that section of my text, and we could debate it below the entire list. Diff walking confirms the version I worked off was [This version] due to the timestamp on the print job. (2 hours of source reading...) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fixits (1c polishing / suggestions)09:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Being actioned 01:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC) For consideration: General style. As a history article I strongly feel all works referred to in notes should be referenced in the references. Consider splitting Primary and Secondary sources within references. Add the following to References (other work parenthetically behind citation). Consider a Selected Bibliography for works of direct relevance.
McDougal(undated)Youth (supply date). The Associated Press. The Record. Arendt1968Totalitarianism. Bailey1983Along (Just checking is the poor fellow really called Bailey Bailey?). Weinberg1995World. Encyclopedia of the United Nations and international agreements. (Specify what the 1 stands for). CIA World Factbook. Pence2008Socialist. Gress1985Peace. Koch1989West. Loth2004Europe (Possible textbook / possible monograph, please check). Berdahl1999Where. The Times. Stokes2000Constructing. Harrison2003Driving. The Manchester Guardian. Maddrel2006Spying. McAdams1985East. Judt1988DDR. Koop1996Den. Kawka2003Regional (See below for correct citation of this work). August1999Along. Lapp1986Frontdienst. Bachman1981Grenzer. The Age (is that the Melbourne Age? Might be multiple papers, need to specify location). Los Angeles Times. Allinson2000Politics. Der Turm Grenzturm Kühlungsborn (see below). Schneider1992German. Display materials (Cite the Museum, translate the Museum's title if its informative). Geschichte Ostseegrenzturm Kühlungsborn. Dennis2000Rise. BBC News website. Berliner Morgenpost. Lockwood2003Europe. Moncourt2009Red (also a primary source, see below). Scotland on Sunday. Gordon1988East. Nelson1972Germany. Christian Science Monitor. Morris1997Fifty (Primary). Sunday Telegraph (which, location data please). The Washington Post. Childs1989SED. Pohl2000Farewell. St. Petersburg Times (please specify location in the fn). K.-H. W v. Germany. The Independent. Deutsche Welle. Neues Deutschland. Ladd1998Ghosts. Ladd2004Companion. Meyer2009Year (extensively repeat cited, ought to be in bibliography even if you reject general bibliography concept). Sebasteyen2009Revolution. Boston Globe. Adam2005Germany. Fröhling2007Ick (possible primary source). Time. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Freytay1996Germany's. UPI (I don't know this press agency, please list it in full if you go with the bibliography). The Week In Germany (see below). Austin American-Statesman. Independent On Sunday.
For resolution: Some references have location of publication, some don't... I note to the right only sources in the bibliography, sources in the footnotes I haven't had the opportunity (time cost) to note (i.e., Baker2004Berlin versus Buchholz1994Inner-german.) Fix these to have locations: Baker2004Berlin, Childs2001Fall, Dale2005Routledge, Gleye1991Behind, Hertle2007Berlin, Jarausch1994Rush (Due to being OUP US), Schweitzer1995Politics, Stacy1984US (Unless USAMHO is part of a research university with a single publication location, then reference the university and the location will be "obvious"), Weber2004Germany. Guardian Weekly. GDR Monitor 1979 (see below). Northnagle1990Building. Reuters. The Prescott Courier (location data would be required). Sunday Star-News (location data would be required). 00:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Has been actioned 01:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC) More on locations, regarding Allinson2000Politics, you cite the location even though the university's location is obvious. You need to pick one of three styles:
No location data supplied (You will make me very unhappy)
Location data supplied for non obvious locations, non-widely known publishers, OUP publishing in the US, Routledge (two Englishes problem), but not supplied for obvious locations New York Times, Manchester University Press
All sources location data supplied
This should now be resolved. I've adopted the second approach, more or less. Does this need to be done for all of the newspapers? I can see the rationale for newspapers which share names with newspapers elsewhere (e.g. the Telegraph) but as far as I know the other newspapers' names are non-overlapping. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers should only really be for cases where the names are common across locations. One exception (of course), The Times is always The Times that is published in London. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. In that case I think I've covered them all. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For resolution: Books in Series, no Series information given
Buchholz1994 is a chapter in a book in series (Volume 3), where is the series information (Series Editor, Series Title, series in superseries etc.)?
Added series editor and series name. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rottman2008Berlin is an Osprey, Osprey are often books in series, if so, where is the series information?
fn70 is a note, all other footnotes have been references. consider separating notes and citations?00:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC) (only consider on this one)
For consideration: Missing Translators in citations00:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you clarify what you mean by this one? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For translated works, its normal to include the name of the translator. e.g.: LastGerman, FirstGerman, "Book about Germany," trans. English_Translator, Location: Publisher, date. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been struggling to find anything that applies to in this article. I've added a translator's name to the current citation 172 (the "Agitator's Notebook" quotation. There is no translator for the current citation 65, the "Attention Demarcation Line" leaflet, since that was originally printed in English. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline causing (1c breaking) 09:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC) (so happy to strike that!)
Has been actioned, bugs reported to Template authors Chapters in collections without editors / maintext author cited AND/OR incorrect citation of chapter from monograph self-authored. Please refer to footnote 243 where you cite it right except you don't indicate if the Editor is an Editor, Author, Translator.
Baker2004Berlin is a chapter from a larger work. Why isn't the larger work's author or editor listed? If the larger work is by Baker, why is the chapter listed?
Lockwood2003Europe. Same issue.
Editor name added. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gordon1988East. Same issue
Editor name added. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Childs1989SED. Same issue.
Pohl2000Farewell.
For Baker, Childs and Pohl, editor names are already in the citation templates (as editor1, editor2 etc.), but they're not displaying. Can anyone help? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Checked Template talk:Cite book work around is either to use editor= both names OR, editor1-last = last editor1-first = first. Will be willing to fill that in if you give the okay below on cites.Fifelfoo (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being actioned 01:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Citation of Primary Sources contained in other works, and quotations from other works.
Primary Sources, and quotations of Primary Sources cited from other works should be cited so that both the Primary Source and Citing Work can be fully identified by future researchers for use.
Schweitzer1995Politics is a book of documents. Footnote 20 at the time I printed (Schweitzer, p. 50) does not indicate the document cited, or the chapter cited if not a document. This failing is serious. It is present at footnote 15, page 59, where you miscite Schweitzer in full given he's in the bibliography, and still don't name the document. fn15 should be "FRD. Basic Law. Article 1. in Schweitzer, p. 59." I can't tell you for footnote 20, because the source isn't named.
Fn 15 is a citation from the Basic Law which is quoted in the course of a commentary by Schweitzer. I've made the source clearer in the citation. Fn 20 is not an original document, it's Schweitzer's commentary. I'm open to suggestions about how fn 20 should be formatted; do I need to give the full bibliographic details a second time? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, it turns out I'd made a significant factual error in citing Schweitzer. I've removed that citation and the accompanying sentences altogether. The remaining Schweitzer citations reference his commentary, not primary documents. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Miscite, "Harrison2003Driving." should be Joseph Stalin (orally) quoted by Harrison, Hope Millard (2003)... p. 240 (footnote). If Harrison cites a source in their footnote, it should be Joseph Stalin in [source] quoted by Harrison, ... p. 240 (footnote).
OK, changed. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Miscite, "Judt1988DDR." Its a book of documents, a primary source book, and you're seriously expecting me to believe that this is an edited chapter at page 437 by the chief editor? Please cite the primary source document being quoted here correctly.
The footnote doesn't refer to a primary source document. The source is a commentary accompanying a primary source document; the commentary is what's being cited, not the document. I've amended the citation to make the source clearer. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moncourt2009Red is a documentary book. Please cite the documents or the introduction. And a primary source cannot carry that kind of statement, its non obvious, its the result of a historian's research... unless its a primary source Government statement. Which is why I want the Primary source in question cited correctly so I can judge if this is OR or SYN or not.
I'm not sure I understand your objection here. Once again the source is a commentary, not a primary document. If primary source material is being cited then I will cite it as such, but where material is being sourced from a particular historian or commentator, it's that person who's being cited. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If its general commentary, then its in an Introduction, no? Last, First ed. "Introduction" in Documents about Ghastly Times, Location: Publisher, year. !!!!
Potential OR / SYN due to inappropriate uses of Primaries
Since the above sources are all commentaries rather than primary sources, I think this point is probably moot. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! !!!!
CIA World Factbook cannot support, "The Soviets responded in October 1949 with the establishment of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), a highly centralised communist dictatorship organised on Stalinist lines." at the highest level of reliable sourcing. That's a historical/political judgement (even if trivially true, I could go and dig up my DDR sources...)
Removed the source and reworded the line as a more straightforward chronological statement, sourced to a different work. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fn227 Not a full citation. Who is August? Do you mean "August, Oliver (1999). Along the Wall and Watchtowers. Harper Collins. p. 28. ISBN 002570432." ?? But August isn't in your bibliography, so you can't use shorthand. Plus its Ben Bradshaw (BBC) [orally, in a recorded form, what?] quoted in "August, Oliver... 432."
OK, I've added August to the bibliography and linked from the citation. Does that work?. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being 01:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC) actioned and beautiful work doing so 09:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Citation formatting or completeness issues that break 1c
General fixits which prevent me from approving due to the problematic nature of these
Encyclopedia of the United Nations and international agreements. (Specify what the 1 stands for). Additionally, the pages the primary document covers should be cited before the page being referenced, i.e. "pp. 100–120: p. 114."
Title amended to specify volume. No primary source is being cited - the citation is of an encyclopedia entry (i.e. a commentary) authored by the compilers. The encyclopedia itself is not a collection of primary documents. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grenzer is miscited at 64. Not an appropriate short reference.
Here is the referenced document, a synopsis of the film published by its distributor, PROGRESS. How would you suggest formatting the citation? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Synopsis of "Film", Studio (Studio), date? Or in Author Year. Studio (Year). Synopsis of "Title"? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reformatted as: "Synopsis of Grenzer (Filmstudio der National Volksarmee, 1981, dir. Reiner Bachmann, Jochen Hoffmann). Progress Film-Verleih, Berlin. Retrieved 6 August 2009." The synopsis appears to be undated. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kawka2003Regional (fn 58) is incorrectly cited. Suspect non reliable source as not standard academic publication mode. loaded PDF: Link is dead. Try instead: Kawka, Richard. "Regional Development along the Former Inner-German Border after Unification (Preliminary Version) " Jyväskylä, Finland: European Regional Science Association Conference 2003 Finland, not peer-reviewed, ERSA paper number: ersa03p245.
Ministerium für Bundesangelegenheiten, Vertriebene und Flüchtlinge is miscited at 65 according to the style you've generally been using. Also, the title should be rendered translated AND original.
There is no "original" (by which I presume you mean German) title. The leaflet was published in English, not German. I've reformatted the citation for consistency. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fn67 Berdahl is cited in short format, not contained in bibliography.
Now added. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fn120: Should be "Bayerische Grenzpolizei, 1968 report [or the real title of the report], quoted in... 87."
How would you suggest citing this? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Took me ages to locate (from lack of trying) but German_legal_citation... for bonus points can you supply the German original title of the DDR law? Fifelfoo (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fn140 Sunday Telegraph, location data essensial.
Now added. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fn153 Glaye is misspelt. Its in the biblio but cited once. This looks like a primary. Thus this looks like OR.
I'm not sure I understand your point here; he's explaining the restrictions imposed on East Germans visiting the West, in the course of a commentary contrasting the difficulties experienced by East Germans crossing the border versus the relative ease that he enjoyed as an American resident in East Germany. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Biographies are generally considered Primary sources, as they talk about the personal experience of the Author? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see what you mean now. In this particular case, the biography first talks about the personal experience of the author in crossing from East Germany to the West and back again; he then goes on to summarise what others have said about their personal experiences (not his!) as East Germans visiting the West. I think that would count as a secondary source, since he is relaying information second-hand, not describing something that happened to him at first-hand. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fn166 quoting a biography for proof, okay, but its unclear if the biography supports the practice, or abhors it. (poor writing, unattributed opinion)
Again I'm not sure exactly what the objection is here. The source is as much a history of the Cold War as a biography. The specific passage being quoted is historical, not biographical, and is a straightforward piece of reportage that does not make any personal judgments: "West German public opionion, on the other hand, was sharply divided about the morality of these transactions. Some denounced them as an infamous trafficking in human beings, some hailed them as acts of pure humanitarianism, and others quietly welcomed them for the links that they forged between the two Germanys." I've amended the wording in the article slightly to match the source more closely. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fn169 Ritter in bibliography, but cited in full here. Different capitalisation, different punctuation of citation in title. actioned 02:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
fn170 unacceptable. Seriously unacceptable. Title only is not sufficient. Please supply author and provenance data.
I couldn't get hold of the original copy again (some bad luck - it's being recatalogued) so I've re-sourced it to another work which says the same thing. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Northnagle1990Building is not in your common citation format, please fix to Author (date) Title format like the rest. actioned 02:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
fn173 Which Daily Telegraph? (Yes there's a weblink, but which?) actioned 02:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Location added. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fn179 Earlier you used "The Associated Press" here only "Associated Press" decide. actioned 02:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The Associated Press Stylebook says "the capitalized article is part of the formal name" of the AP, so I've changed it to "The Associated Press" throughout.
fn184 No newspaper listed in citation. Please fix. actioned 02:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
fn197 Not how you cite an archive. "The incident prompted students from Braunschweig to erect a sign on the border protesting the killing." starts to feel close to OR for me
So I went out and fixed it myself! :) Fifelfoo (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fn198 Not how you cite a newspaper. Supply the newspaper's name, for example. actioned 02:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
fn201 Already in bibliography, why cite in full here. My bad. My eyes must have gone 02:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
If you're referring to the Ladd citation (Ladd, Brian (2004). The companion guide to Berlin...), I'm a bit puzzled by this since there's only one instance of it in the text and it's not in the bibliography. Were you thinking of something else? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meyer2009Year (extensively repeat cited, ought to be in bibliography even if you reject general bibliography concept) actioned 02:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Moved to bibliography per suggestion. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fn218 citation breaks style, you otherwise cite Childs (Year). Actually, decide this for all of them, there's only one Child's text, why cite the year here for it? Why not cite the year for everyone / no-one unless necessary? actioned 02:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
There are actually two Childs works, one from 1989 (cited only once) and the other from 2001. It's necessary to differentiate between them to avoid confusion (this came up in the peer review, and citing the second work with a parenthetical date seemed like the best solution). If you have an alternative suggestion I'm happy to consider it. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there are two works, author only short citations should include years for both Author (1999) and Author (2000) for example. I'll be rechecking the article later in the week to go through striking my issues, so I'll see how you've solved things then! Fifelfoo (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fn243 editor's name incorrectly spaced, editor's status (author/ editor) not indicated actioned 02:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Incorrectly spelled too as it turned out, but all now sorted out. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fn244 A weekly without articles? please cite the article and the article's author. actioned 02:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I've added the article title, but no author is listed. It's solely attributed to the German Information Center in New York. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, some newspapers are corporately authored Fifelfoo (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Museum Citation Issue. Sooooo happy we got this done Fifelfoo (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ResolvedFifelfoo (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC) If citing a Museum: The object cited (if referring to a Museum description, also cite that its the description "Guard Post Alpha, Museum's description of function", the Museum's name, and translated name, the exhibit's name (if a Museum with multiple exhibitions) and translation, if the object is on permanent exhibit, if on temporary exhibit the dates exhibited when referenced, the date referenced by the researcher (date of attendance), the location of the Museum, the authority controlling the Museum. I am willing to debate this below, but I feel very strongly that I cannot call your references to these materials reliable when cited as is. (I believe if correctly referenced, they would be reliable, though some may be PRIMARY).[reply]
fn78 "Der Turm" is unacceptable. No date, no provenance, no internal reference, no author. More context.
fn82 Display Materials is similarly unacceptable. More context for this stuff. Is it a permanent exhibition, etc. etc. etc.
fn93 Geschichte Ostseegrenzturm Kühlungsborn. Same.
fn118. Display materials Gedenkstätte Point Alpha. Is this part of a museum or a maintained section? Cite the museum not just the location point.
fn139 Museum citation issue.
fn142 Museum citation issue.
fn148 improper citation. Museum citation issue.
fn168 Museum citation issue.
fn188 Museum citation issue.
fn206 Museum citing issue
This is hopefully resolved now. The few remaining items cited to museums are now cited to specific named works published by those museums. Just as well I made a copy of everything while taking notes at the museums! -- ChrisO (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For debate
Resolved 01:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC) How close to being PRIMARY is the extensive use of Newspapers, Objects of the Past, Biography and Recollection, and occasional use of Primary Sources books. In history PRIMARY leads to OR. Only secondary sources can make judgement calls, and in most cases, interpret facts. Primaries in history should be used like photographs or diagrams, illustrative, but with the actual claims supported by a secondary of highest reliability. Newspaper articles of, or close to the time, are in history considered primary sources. In relation to historical articles, contemporary newspapers are not the highest quality reliable source. One reason why I want clearer citations is so that I can read the article and determine if the weight of the narrative is coming out of the reliable secondary sources or out of the primary sources / non-highest reliability sources.Fifelfoo (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As regards museum objects, is there any backup for this long list in WP guidelines at all or have you just made it all up? Featured articles about objects in museums often do not give all this information, and the inclusion of some of it - such as whether the object is on display at a particular moment - is actually undesirable. To reference such an object, all that is normally needed is the owner, the descriptive title as they give it, the accession/catalogue number, and a link or reference to any printed or online catalogue including it, or other book etc it appears in. Museum objects are often moved around, taken on or off display, & where it was at a particular moment is of little interest, or use for referencing purposes. If, as seems to be the case, we are just talking about museum captions or information displays rather than information contained in actual museum objects, that is more difficult, as once changed they are likely to vanish leaving no record behind, which is a problem for WP:V. It is not necessary to demand authorship; we do not do so for museum webpages, which typically give no individual author. On individual refs: "Note 78" - now 77 - on the tower is a building apparently owned by a private company for preservation & as a tourist attraction; the single piece of information being referenced is on its website, which seems fine to me, though an access date should be added. Same for 93, currently 92. Note 82, now 81, and 117, 138, 142 (118 etc above), do need more information - at the least a clearer location, even address, and some indication of ownership/status, and the date seen - or a link as with the other tower. 167, 187 & 203 are unclear - are these display materials again? Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: re-organisation of references
I propose reorganising the references so that the Notes section only uses short refs (always consisting of author, year, page), and everything else is in the references section. We have around 125 separate references; these could be subdivided into categories such as journalistic sources, books and museum exhibits. Would this address your formatting concerns, Fifelfoo? --JN466 11:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support Jayen's proposal, and would be interested to hear what Fifelfoo thinks of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Sources without authors provide difficulties, I suggest you use the next best provenance information available, either the Work title or the Publisher. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note for reference: see also SlimVirgin's suggestion further down this page. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bibliography isn't full yet, and periodical citations are in two different styles regarding dates. Have you decided to go with a fully populated bibliography or not? If you have, I'm happy to do the work. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently revising the article to trim its size (see the discussion below) so I've put the bibliography/citation work on hold until the actual article content is sorted out, which should be by the end of today, hopefully. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. The main outstanding that I can't resolve is the Museum pieces. Am happy to work on the article to direction to help get it in on time. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll sort out the museum issue tomorrow, since some of the citations are going to be disappearing from the main article as it gets slimmed down through the course of today. If you could have a look at the remaining issues then I'd be grateful. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: All the book references and all the new references have now been converted into "clickable short footnote + references listing" format. See Inner_German_border#Notes.
Some remaining housekeeping issues:
Some of the news articles have named authors; others do not have a named author. Should we separate them according to that criterion? At the moment they're all in one list, the ones without named authors attributed to "Staff" in the "last" field. (The reason for that being, if the "last" field isn't filled in, the publication date is displayed at the back of the ref, just before the access date if present, and that is off-putting if all other references have the publication date near the beginning).
What is left now is half a dozen museum sources, plus two or three oddballs. Should we start a separate section for these? Given that it is so few now, I am tempted to leave them where they are. --JN466 21:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm agnostic on this issue, but I would say that if it's not causing any problems it's probably best to leave them where they are. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I split the difference. Because they're mostly unique I mostly left them in text (except for the archival source, where a full cite would be too long). So I added an "Other" section, and I think it looks brilliant. Excellent work ChrisO and Jayen466. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MasterOfHisOwnDomain
Comment: Excellent article from my first skimming over; the images in particular are fantastic. One issue:
Fortifications on the Border > Overview: I believe the diagrams shown here need to be given some explanation for Alt text. At the moment they exclude visually impaired readers.MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at expanding these two alt texts. I'm not sure how well I've managed, and I'll revisit the texts – these diagrams are fiendishly difficult to describe in words. --JN466 01:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's much better than what was there before anyway, and I think you've done a good job on it. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for sorting this out, Jayen - it looks fine to me. MasterOfHisOwnDomain, are there any other issues that you feel need to be sorted? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not clinching issues, but nonetheless:
East Germany's sea border: Schutzgebiet should have a translation (as protective area) since this is done for other german terms.
Fortifications on the border > Guard dogs: While it makes for a pleasant read, the last paragraph of this section seems unnecessary in an article that is so long. If you're looking to reduce the size of the article, this would be amongst my first targets.
I think I'll leave it as it is for now, but I'm planning to create some spinoff articles in due course; it may be possible to decant this content into a spinoff article at that point. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: I've made some minor changes: delinking the repeat of Berlin Wall and rewording two sentences. Please give your opinion on the rewordings, I know this can be a touchy issue in the lead. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That looks fine to me, thanks very much. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. This is a very, very good article, and so have my Support for it to be given FA status. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Supportive comment: As a former East German with some historical expertise, I can confirm that the topic is thouroughly covered for Wikipedia standards. No major issues are omitted, and the content is factually accurate. Once the sourcing issues are resolved, this article is going to be one of Wikipedia's finest FAs. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support and nitpick An excellent article. I couldn't see when the French zone was established - did I miss this? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The French Zone never reached the inner border so not really relevant to this article. ϢereSpielChequers 17:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WereSpielChequers is right, but for the record it was established at the same time as the other occupation zones, in May 1945. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article looks good, but lacks German sources. An important issue still needs coverage: legally crossing the border and all procedures and equipment associated with this (leading to disputes about health issues because of high radiation exposure).Wandalstouring (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made a conscious decision to focus on English-language sources, not least because they are the most readily available to me. More fundamentally though, I try to use sources in the native language of the wiki on which I'm writing. I want English-speaking readers to be able to go away from the article and use the sources I've listed. If the information is available in English and German, I've preferentially used the English sources (for instance, relying on Rottman and Stacy for a lot of the operational detail; Ritter would be the equivalent source in German). I've used German sources only where I've not been able to find English-language equivalents.
Query Interesting read, nice work, I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki.
I'm a bit concerned about the length as its over 200kb and that may make it difficult for some to read. Would such an article be appropriate for the mainpage?
There is around 200Kb of wikicode, but it's significantly inflated by the complex formatting - citations, alt tags, image code etc. The actual text length is substantially less, around 168 Kb. I'm open to suggestions on this point. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've copy edited out a few bites, but I think the whole total is rising. I'd be tempted to spin out the section on the partition of Germany and have a "Main" link, also you could make more use of GDR instead of East Germany.
Some of the photos would benefit from being closer to the relevant part of the text - particularly the watch tower that was vulnerable to the wind.
If you can suggest any specific images to move, I'll take a look at them. The layout of the watchtower images was a deliberate decision, though - I put them side-by-side to facilitate an at-a-glance comparison between each type. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the landmines, watchtowers and the British frontier service/US army galleries would all benefit from subdivision and moving to the relevant paragraph; but the most important one to my mind is that the picture of the wind vulnerable tower be on screen when you read the text about it. If you must keep the towers together you could of course move the whole gallery.
"Built in phases from 1952 to the late 1980s, the border fortifications were constructed by East Germany in response to the ever-increasing numbers of its citizens fleeing to the West." reads to me as if the numbers crossing were ever increasing until the 80s. Since that wasn't the case is a rephrase possible?
I agree that the wording was ambiguous. I've altered the line to read "the border fortifications were constructed by East Germany in response to the economic threat posed by the large-scale emigration of its citizens to the West." -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The initially secret arrangement was revealed by Rainer Barzel, the Federal Minister for All-German Affairs at the time, who wrote in his memoirs:" When did it cease to be secret?ϢereSpielChequers 18:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The book (Auf dem Drahtseil) was published in 1978. I've noted this parenthetically in the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of an 11 metre tall tower constructed of sections 1" thick, but suspect that the walls were 1" thick not the sections. ϢereSpielChequers 06:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified the wording to "eleven interlocking circular segments with walls 2.5 centimetres (1.0 in) thick". -- ChrisO (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a really good read, my sense checking queries have been resolved, and I believe it to be of FA quality. I don't think maximum size is an FA criteria but I still think the size may cause some users problems. Ideally one would want the map of East Germany translated, and I have a suggestion above about positioning of photos, but I don't think that those matters would be sufficient to preclude FA status. ϢereSpielChequers 16:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS What is a "Horse Dog"? ϢereSpielChequers 12:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. I presume it's a nickname, since the source (which is in English) speaks of "so-called horse dogs". -- ChrisO (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the size issue. I still have a number of minor concerns above, but they don't add up to enough to preclude FA status. ϢereSpielChequers 10:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are "British" and "US" linked? Please see WP:LINK. Is there a more specific link for Soviet occupation zone than "Soviet"? (Maybe, maybe not.)Can we have the 's within the link for "Churchill", please? WP:LINKING shows how to do it.
Fixed, added links to the Western and Soviet occupation zone articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"capitalist and communist, democratic and totalitarian"—yep, but a newbie reader might be confused that the totalitarian state was called "German Democratic Republic". Is there a word other than democratic? (Hitler was democratically elected, I recall, too.)
Would "freely elected" work better? The "democratic" in the GDR's name was due to a quirk of Marxist ideology (same as with North Korea) - the West was said to have a system of "formal democracy" (meaning superficially free elections, but real power in the hands of capitalists) while the Communist world operated "actual democracy" (both free elections and real power in the hands of the people). Of course, the reality was rather different... -- ChrisO (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was spin, of course. Yes, "freely elected" looks better. Tony(talk) 07:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"ever-increasing"—just "increasing" might be enough, given the context?
I've taken this out. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The inner German border caused widespread economic and social disruption on both sides, with East Germans living in the border region suffering especially draconian restrictions." This is a fixable "with plus noun plus -ing" construction, in which the relationship between the clauses is not entirely clear and the effect a little awkward. It's additive, so "and [or just use a semicolon] East Germans living in the border region suffered ..." would be better. Same here: "with the Americans being given" ... "; the Americans were given".
For the first time ever, I've noticed that non-breaking spaces before the en dashes as interrupters, are skewing the placement of the dashes in display mode (to the left). Is it just my system? See "gaue", for example.
I've tried it on three different systems at different resolutions and I can't replicate that effect. I'd be interested to know if anyone else is experiencing the same thing? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So would I. I'll raise it at WT:MoS. I've recently changed from Safari to Firefox, both for the Mac. Tony(talk) 07:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"making it easier to resupply it from the UK"—does it mean "supply British troops"? Or the civilian population?
Both - the entire zone and its population, civilian and military. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was also hoped that decentralising forces in Germany would be promoted by reviving traditional provincial boundaries." Errr ... this is a little cryptic. Would it be safer to talk in terms of the convenience of piggybacking the division on top of the old administrative structures of Germany? Or something like that? (Or have I got it the wrong way around?)
It wasn't a matter of convenience per se, as far as I understand it, since the old structures weren't reconstituted (the modern Länder have substantially different boundaries from the pre-1933 provinces). The intention was reportedly to reverse the post-1870 centralisation of Germany, which had been dominated by one state, i.e. Prussia. The complete disappearance of Prussia from the German political map was a deliberate decision which was partly implemented by splitting Prussia into different Länder and further splitting its territory between all four occupation zones. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Interestingly, the modern Länder boundaries show on Google Earth. Flying overhead along the boundary shows the hideous scarring of the landscape on the east where fences and roads were installed, and how they smoothed out the crinkly boundary in many places. Fascinating. Tony(talk) 07:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first version of the border fortifications did run along the "crinkly boundary", but that greatly lengthened the perimeter of the border fences and made it harder for the East Germans to control it. That's why they pulled the fortifications back up to several hundred metres for the final version of the border fortifications, even though it meant sacrificing valuable agricultural land. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What, Roosevelt didn't trust the British to let US supplies in through a coastal British zone? Extraordinary.
It wasn't a matter of trust, it was more a case of a desire for autonomy. The US didn't want to be dependent on another power for its forces' resupply. The ironic thing is that after the Berlin Airlift showed how vulnerable Western supply lines in Germany were, the US hastily arranged to use French ports to supplement Bremerhaven - precisely the scenario which the use of Bremerhaven was intended to prevent. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So it's the British we have to thank for the large size of the GDR, is it?
Sorry about that... -- ChrisO (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"went into effect" ... "came ...".
Changed. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Because of the unexpectedly rapid Allied advance"—it's OK, but watch those close repetitions. "Expected" occurs a few seconds earlier.
Changed "expected" to "anticipated". -- ChrisO (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Each of the four powers ... was. (not were). I think I'm right, but please correct me if not. And "its", not "their"?
No, you're right. Changed. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"where they would enjoy greater freedoms as well as improved economic prospects"—can this be rationalised? "where they would enjoy greater freedom and economic prospects".
Changed. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The East German government had an equally important incentive"—was it exactly equal? Apples and oranges, maybe. It works without the "false equality" in the wording.
Reworded the line. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"There were a number of incidents of both Soviet and American troops mounting unauthorised expeditions"—noun plus -ing again (can you audit throughout? There are more ... just search for "with"). "... in which both ... mounted ...". But this one works: "The Western side did not attempt to stop people crossing from the east" ("from" is ellided").
Reworded both lines. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"spring"—see MoS on seasons (spring starts in September here).
Changed to "first quarter". -- ChrisO (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"boundary line"? Remove second word?
Changed to "demarcation line", the proper term for this period. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"in the way that".
Changed "way that" to "how". -- ChrisO (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"had met the Soviet leadership", since we're going back in time from the previous paragraph?
Changed. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The Soviets were as alarmed by the problem as their East German protégés." Another forced equative? Exactly as alarmed?
Reworded. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10 metres is 32.8 feet, not 30 feet. I like the non-use of those dreadful converters in the text, but let's not slip on the calculator. Google "Meters to feet" and it's there in a jiffy. There are other examples, too.
More on conversions: the MoS says to avoid the hyphen issue by recasting huge gobbledy nominal groups like An adjoining 500 m (1,500 ft) wide "protective strip" (Schutzstreifen) and a further 5 km (3 mile) wide "restricted zone" (Sperrzone) thus: An adjoining "protective strip" (Schutzstreifen) 500 m (1,500 ft) wide and a further "restricted zone" (Sperrzone) 5 km (3 mi) wide. Consistent abbreviation for converted unit, please (and it would have been "mileS" in the recasting if spelled out). Here's a bet each way: "A 500-metre (1,600 ft) wide strip" [A 500-metre (1,600 ft)-wide strip?].
I've reworded it, see what you think now. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"After 1952, the majority left via West Berlin." Is this located too late in the para? Is it repetitive?
Agreed, it probably is redundant. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"a variety of"—does it add anything useful?
Fair point, I've reworded this line.
"for instance, not allowing their use during the night"—consider "such as during the night".
Changed. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"delays resulted in the modernisation programme continuing well into the 1980s"—noun plus -ing.
Reworded.
"East German's international isolation was rapidly ended, with the number of countries recognising the GDR rising from thirteen in 1962 to 115 by 1975". Is there a "y" missing? Noun plus -ing. Probably "13" is easier here. "Was rapidly ended" is not idiomatic, and "ended" indicates a sharp boundary, so to speak.
Rewrote this line. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"border line" again.
"Border line" is legitimate usage, and it's being used for a reason. The OED defines it thus: "The strip of land along the border between two countries or districts; a frontier-line; often fig., the boundary between areas, classes, etc." The term "border" by itself is ambiguous in some contexts related to the inner German border, since it can mean two things - the actual line on the map, or the border zone. In the context in which it's being used here, people living in the border zone were evicted for living too close to the border line. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. To me it looks like a borderline usage (bad pun, sorry). Tony(talk) 11:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but this is one instance where a greater degree of specificity than usual is required to avoid possible confusion. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
border controls are the rules for who passes legally, versus the "fortifications"? Might be unclear to some readers.
I've reworded this line. See what you think of it now. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"257 million East German marks" sounds like pocket money compared with what they must have spent on construction and operation until then. Doesn't add up that it was the crucial disincentive for Grenze 2000.
East Germany was completely and utterly bankrupt by that point (1988). They couldn't even maintain the existing border - they had to resort to putting cardboard cutouts in the watchtowers because they didn't have enough people to do the job. The government was spending its loans on repaying the interest from its previous loans. If I recall correctly, interest payments alone accounted for around 60% of the state budget. Even if the state hadn't collapsed in 1989, it would have suffered an economic collapse soon afterwards anyway. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"23 autobahns or national roads"—is that an "equative" or? If so, "23 autobahns (national roads)".
No, autobahns and national roads are in two different categories. An autobahn (four lanes, high-speed traffic, limited exits) is something different from a national road (two lanes, lower-speed traffic, many exits). Perhaps "and" would work better than "or"? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, changed. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Telephone and mail communications remained open throughout, although packages and letters sent through the mail were routinely opened and telephone calls were monitored."—By both sides? Better say so if that was the case. Tension between "open" and "opened", which refer to quite different things. "operated" for the first one?
The Stasi did the monitoring. I've reworded the line to make this clear and changed the first "open" to eliminate any repetition. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the Czechoslovak border or the Baltic coast"—ah, so the Czech border was similar to the inner German border? Why the Baltic coast of West Germany?
Yes, see Czechoslovakian border fortifications during the Cold War. Oddly enough, the East Germans also fortified their border with Czechoslovakia, so that on the Czech–GDR border there were two sets of border fortifications facing each other. As for the Baltic coast, I can only guess that this was to do with the economic impact that the border had on the Baltic economy. For instance, the effective loss of fishing access to East Germany's coastal waters would certainly have affected coastal towns. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this article in the "See also" section? I haven't checked, but you might consider putting it there if it's not there already. Tony(talk) 06:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a parallel construction: "were forbidden not only to build new houses but were not allowed to repair existing ones". "Ones" is not good style. And "forbidden" doesn't take "to", but "from". "were forbidden from building new houses and even from repairing existing houses."?
Changed, though I've used "buildings" in place of the second "houses" to eliminate repetition. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"in some areas where residents were forced to leave"—remove "some".
"Some" is correct in this context. There wasn't a total abandonment of economic activity in all evacuated areas. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the intended meaning "some but not all areas where residents were forced to leave"? If so, make it unambiguous by writing "Some of the areas where ...". If you mean all such areas, remove "some". "East German troops guarded the border" doesn't mean all East German troops. It also depends on whether "the" is used. Tony(talk) 06:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Grenztruppen killed on the border are hailed as heroes and their memorial in East Berlin is saluted by schoolchildren." What, schoolkids in Aachen salute this?
Well, no... I've added "by the East German state" to make this clearer. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"led to it rejecting East Germany's claims"—noun plus -ing, erky. "its rejection of".
I've changed this to "prompted it to reject". -- ChrisO (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The government's public statements"—which government?
West Germany's - I've clarified this. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
though the West Germans noted "a lot more movement on that watchtower since the nudist beach opened."—Unsure of the logic of "though".
Agreed, I've removed the word. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
would first reach the edge of the to the restricted zone
"Audible, flashing or silent alarms." This needs work. "would activate auditory, visual or ..." (What are silent alarms?). Remove "to be activated".
I've shortened this to eliminate any confusion. There were three kinds of alarms - flashing lights (of the kind you used to see on cop cars) and sirens that were mounted on or next to the signal fence, and silent alarms located in command watchtowers that alerted the border guards without also alerting the escapee. Rather a similar system to that which banks use - press a button to alert the cops that there's a robbery in progress, but no alarm sounds inside the bank. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, cut the plural from units (metres) when used attributively (as an adjective before the noun).
Switched the sentence order. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion between "on the western side of the border" and "West German territory".
I omitted the word "fence" after "border". Added. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"situation at regular"—remove the first word.
Reworded. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"overlooked" has two, quite opposite meanings (like "sanctioned").
Changed to "monitored". -- ChrisO (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"to enable the guards to fire out"—the "out" is unusual; English-speakers may first think it's a compound verb such as "pull out" (= withdraw, say, troops). But here it clearly means "fire outwards". Recast, possibly as "fire at anyone attempting to cross"?
I've changed this to "to enable the guards to open fire without leaving the tower", as that's the key point. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"emplaced"—nice and Germanic, but we don't have a verb from "emplacement". Just remove it.
Yes we do, it's standard military terminology. See [14] for many examples. The verb "emplace" is listed in the Oxford English Dictionary as a back-formation from "emplacement". The definition is: "trans. To put into a place or position. spec. To provide an emplacement for new guns." I should add that it's used more generally than just for guns (I speak here from personal experience as well as the book examples I've just given). It's from French, btw, like a great many military terms. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 inch: suddenly the conversions are reversed. Remove "which was" (accessed).
Removed. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, "1.8 by 1.8 metres (5.9 ft × 5.9 ft) in cross-section"—yes, you do need the "s" there—it's grammatically subtle; but "1.8 by 1.8 metre (5.9 ft × 5.9 ft) cross-section".
I've swapped the sentence order. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cables were suspended.... This allowed the dogs to ..."
Changed. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
mixture ... mixed. BTW, "various" is OK there, IMO.
Changed. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The fall of ..." para: one or two "that"s could be dropped.
"In reality, the dogs were said to be quite docile." But in reality, the dogs were branded "dangerous" too. If you're looking for bits to trim, this is it.
Good point! Changed. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The Kolonnenweg was usually located between the control strip and the watchtowers, located further back." Try to pick up those repetitions. "was usually located futher back between".
Reworded to clarify, since I could see some potential confusion. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"alongside ... along". It's a parallel construction, so here a repetition is appropriate.
OK.
"was constructed in parallel to the waterways"—remove "in". Remove "in places".
"were eventually installed. It was given various descriptions" Clash of number. Both plural?
I've reworded this line: "Some 60,000 SM-70s were eventually installed. The SM-70 was given various descriptions." Does that work better? -- ChrisO (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"and so on" is very informal. "such as ..."
Reworded. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of an obvious statement, isn't it? :-) Fixed. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"This included ... and so on."
Ensure ... ensuring.
"work details" ... "work units"? Would be easier to read; I first thought it referred to work schedules/records.
Standard military terminology - you're detailed to a task. I think "work detachments" is better, on reflection. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caption: most readers won't know that "Bundes" means West German. The file description should be borrowed: "a West German Aerospatiale Alouette II helicopter patrolling the East German border. East German border guards are in the background." Well, the guards can be seen, but not yet in the article. Make it bigger? Why is it tiny and paired with the second-rate dog pic? It's a great pic—dramatic and symbolic on more than one level.
The East Germans are only just visible even at 800 pixels across, so enlarging the picture - say to 400 px - wouldn't work. I've added "the West German side" to the caption to make it clearer. As for the Bundesgrenzschutz, I've used the convention of using the German names for state organisations - e.g. Stasi, Luftwaffe, Wehrmacht etc. The pictures under "West Germany" are paired on the basis of one picture representing each organisation - the BGS and BZV for the first pair, the US Army and the BFS for the second pair. I don't have pictures of the BGP or the British Army on the border but am hopeful of being able to get some in due course. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Pity there's no way of enticing readers to hit the high-res button. Still could be larger than it was. The MoS no longer implies that editors should normally use tiny default pics. You might consider getting rid of the dog pic, which is ... unremarkable. Looking at the WP.de version, there are pics there that are more interesting than that dog pic. Tony(talk) 11:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aiming for representativeness, and from what I've read the Zollhunde were apparently quite an iconic sight on the border region. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
404 miles: why the inversion of units?
Inverted the other way.
"with soldiers being issued weapons"—and soldiers were
It's a play on words - "Cold War", "frigid". You reckon it doesn't work? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a bit laboured, both the play on words and the actual word "frigid", which is less usual as an epithet for human behaviour, and has unfortunate overtones of female sexuality. Tony(talk) 11:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, how about "frosty"? -- ChrisO (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Frosty" is pretty laboured too, but better than "frigid". Alternative: "hostile".
"aggressively bellicose"—Bellicosity is aggressive. This is from a thesaurus? <grin>
Point taken! Removed "aggressively". -- ChrisO (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It was fairly permeable throughout the Cold War," ... err, confusing.
Rewritten to make it clearer (I hope!). -- ChrisO (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"60 DM fee"—so it had to be in West German currency?
Apparently so. This was of course not easy to get in East Germany, as the East German mark was not convertible, but then again the GDR government wanted to make it difficult for people to go to the west. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The odds were against applications being successful"—noun plus -ing. "against successful applications".
Changed. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"visa; however, it also ...". Not enough semicolons.
Reworded the lines, since I felt they were a bit clunky. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS says to recast the wording to avoid a sentence-initial numeral: "33,755 political prisoners". There are at least two more further down.
Reworded. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awkwardly long sentence: "A further 2,087 prisoners being released to the West under an amnesty in 1972. 215,019 people, including 2,000 children cut off from their parents, were allowed to leave East Germany to rejoin their families."
Not sure what happened there, I suspect it may have been copyedited after I wrote it. I've reworded it somewhat now.
Can't it be "more than 3.4 billion DM"?
Good idea, done. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "attempted" category means "attempted and not successful"? Successful escapes were presumably preceded by an attempt.
"not least because West Germany had secretly offered a much-needed hard currency loan of DM 500 million ($250 million)." ... dependent on the opening of Hungary's border? Otherwise ... hard to fathom.
I've reworded this line. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that it would be opened with "immediately, without delay",—remove "with"?
Removed. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"nor was it meant to apply to tourists"—add "East German" before "tourists".
Reworded. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"40 miles" .... conversion chaos.
Resolved. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check W/w for West/Western. Either is fine, but consistent please.
Capitalised for consistency. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
point on the Hamburg–Berlin autobahn (two fixes)
Fixed, I think. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"With the CDU being in charge". "with the Western Deutsche Mark replacing the East German mark". "with all but 2,000 of them being dismissed". "led to it becoming a haven for wildlife". Erky.
Resolved with various rewordings. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"rather"—too subjective for WP.
Another editor added it, I've removed it. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"within five months of the border opening"—could be a gap in the fence.
Now "border being opened". -- ChrisO (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's noun + -ing. "of the opening of the border". I know it's more words, but it's more comfortable grammatically. Tony(talk) 07:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the suggestion. Changed. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Very little now remains"—remove "now", which is unWPian.
Stasiland is a great read, but I don't feel comfortable using it as a source - it's a very subjective work, doesn't cite its own sources (as far as I recall) and - again as far as I recall, since it's a while since I read it - doesn't really say that much about the border. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If memory serves, there's a couple of anecdotes in it about escapes, attempted escapes, and legitimate travel to the West. The article as it stands has quite a good quote from Jan Morris about the experience of crossing the border; perhaps there's someone quoted in Stasiland (or something like it) who could be quoted to show the "Eastern" perspective on the same journey? Shimgray | talk | 15:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eubulides
The existing alt text is of very high quality (thanks!) but there are some problems:
The two image galleries use the <gallery> tag, which does not support alt text. Please add alt text to these galleries by using {{Image gallery}} or some other method (please see WP:PIC#Galleries for suggestions).
I've reformatted the image galleries using the template you suggested. Alt text to follow. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You might want to check your work, when you're done, by visiting the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added alt texts for the gallery images. [15] --JN466 23:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I struck that bullet. Eubulides (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The alt text for the two maps doesn't convey to the visually impaired reader the essence of the maps. Please pretend you're describing the map to someone who may know European geography but not the details of this particular political layout. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for more suggestions.
Alt text for the two maps now expanded. --JN466 23:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There's no need to mention map colors if that's not relevant to the gist of the image (see WP:ALT#Maps), so I removed that part; the rest looks good and I struck that bullet. Eubulides (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll bear it in mind in future. --JN466 10:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "Screen capture from East German propaganda film showing" can't easily be verified by a non-expert simply by looking at the image, and should be removed or reworded as per WP:ALT#Verifiability.
Yes, that's where I'd put it, as it is description. Eubulides (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've shortened the alt texts and transferred the long versions to the image file pages. If the shortened texts are still too long, do let me know and I'll chip away at them further. --JN466 12:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's good enough, and I've struck that bullet in the list above. Eubulides (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The alt text was in the first image but not displaying due to a formatting error, and I've added text for the second image. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dhatfield
Conditional support. See reviewed vote in light of article size issues Dhatfield (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not sure if I have overstepped the contribution line for a valid vote - as always, closing admin's discretion.
Brilliant use of images and I sincerely hope that one day all Wikipedia articles will be as well researched as this one.
I feel pretty nervous making comments on style in the shadow of a giant like Tony1.
Focussing on the summary:
Is it necessary or desirable to give the abbreviation and colloqial term? As in "(GDR, East Germany)".
Yes, I think so. The terms "GDR" and "East German" are used in many places in the text. Acronyms should always be spelled out the first time they're used, and to someone unfamiliar with the formal names of the two countries it's not immediately obvious that "German Democratic Republic" = "East Germany". -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It was guarded around the clock by 50,000 armed East German border guards who faced tens of thousands of West German, British and U.S. border guards and soldiers on the other side.[1]" Firstly, "around the clock" is clumsy and borderline redundant. Secondly, "who faced ... on the other side" is redundant and "on the other side" is wordy. You specifically mention border guards on the East German side, yet include soldiers in your description of the troops on the Western side. Should we not have symmetry? For example, "The border was continuously manned by 50,000 East German border guards and tens of thousands of their counterparts from West Germany, Britain and the U.S."?
I've taken out "around the clock" and "on the other side". The difference in wording between the East and West German sides is that different types of forces patrolled the border. On the east, there were the border guards. On the west, there were border guards, customs officers (who were de facto border guards) and regular soldiers from the British and US armies. The two sides were not mirror images of each other, but operated in quite different ways. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Over a million NATO and Warsaw Pact troops were stationed further back, each side constantly alert for an invasion that ultimately never came." Is "ultimately" necessary? "constantly alert" would be phrased "maintained high alert" in more military parlance. I don't like "further back" but can't come up with a decent alternative: consider rephrasing.
I believe that "the two ideological systems" would read more easily as "two ideological systems".
Changed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"it was constructed in response to the economic threat posed by the large-scale emigration of its citizens to the West..." I hesitate to argue with your reference, but I would say that from the Soviet perspective the threat was far more ideological than economic. "its citizens" is a little vague, consider rephrasing to more closely link with East German citizens.
The sources (not just the one cited) are in agreement that the main motivating factor was the economic damage caused by the loss of East Germany's citizens. By some estimates East Germany lost (if I recall correctly) as much as a quarter of its population in post-war migration to the West. Its economy was on its knees anyway (the Soviets systematically stripped the country for reparations, and there was no Marshall Aid). -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"with East Germans living in the border region suffering especially draconian restrictions." could be rephrased as "with East Germans in the border region living under especially draconian restrictions."
Still a bit clunky, I've changed this to "East Germans living in the border region suffered especially draconian restrictions". -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"linking various national parks and nature reserves" - "various" is a bit clumsy, perhaps consider something like "linking parks and nature reserves across N national borders". (where N is the number of nations involved)
I don't have a figure, so I've just taken out "various". -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In "Numerous museums and memorials...", "numerous" is redundant.
Removed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General comment:
Beware of redundancy, as in "Very little now remains of the installations along the former inner German border." - "now" is unnecessary. There is also some overuse of "the". I would say this is the only flaw in your otherwise excellent prose. I'm certain you are tired of reading and copyediting this article, but I propose one more pass to look for these stray, irritating little words. This is the condition for my support.
OK, I've had a crack at whittling down the indefinite articles, and will return to this when I've got through the higher-priority items that are still outstanding on this page. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Best of luck with the FA and 20th anniversary main page, it's an excellent idea. Dhatfield (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a prior main page request for Nov 9 which has attracted support: Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#November_9. The border fell on the night from Nov. 9 to Nov. 10; one possibility would be to settle for Nov. 10 (provided this article has been promoted by then). --JN466 12:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, though the prior request is unfortunate, since the anniversary is definitely Nov. 9. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it really necessary to have five footnotes in the lede? Generally, the lede is not footnoted, since it, broadly speaking, is a summary of the article and thus the supporting information in the article will need the footnotes.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this come up in a few FACs. Other FAs that I've written/co-written have certainly had footnotes in the lede (see e.g. Battlefield Earth (film)), though I note that I haven't been consistent in that regard (e.g. Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act). I think it doesn't hurt to include them, to be honest. People normally complain about too few footnotes, not too many. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had it raised on a number of mine, but WP:LEADCITE seems flexible. Excellent work. I read it through, good work.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. Just a question: I was wondering why only the books are in the References section. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 20:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's in the process of being sorted out, see under "Proposal: re-organisation of references" above. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I don't think all the books are in that section either, e.g. Alex McDougall. I was wondering if it would make sense to list all the sources in the References section, because it currently looks as though you didn't use that many sources, but you have 249 footnotes. It would also mean you could get the citation templates out of the text (a personal bugbear of mine, which you're not obliged to share, of course). :) SlimVirgintalk|contribs 20:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, I don't know what your view of citation templates is, and I don't want to interfere, or contribute to you being battered by suggestions, but with an article this size, I would avoid them even more than usual. I just fixed the McDougall ref to include the fancy template thing, and again in the Refs section, and it's quite time-consuming. In your shoes, I would type Smith 2009, p. 1 in the text between simple ref tags, then in the References section, no template, just Smith, John. Book title, Publisher, year. It's faster to type, it's easier to read in edit mode, and no templates will make the page load more easily (and it's already struggling my end because of the length). That's just my suggestion. Please feel free to ignore. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 20:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My experience from previous FACs is that they're preferred; some people seem to demand them, others aren't so bothered, so I tend to use them by default since that avoids a lot of very time-consuming reformatting later. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine; if you're used to them, it may be faster for you. Just one point: no one can insist on citation templates at FAC, so you should choose freely.
ChrisO, citation templates are neither preferred nor required. You do not have to comply with individual demands on citation styles; SV is correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have another suggestion. I wonder whether some of the sections are a bit long. It makes it harder for people who are skimming to find information. I was thinking that adding a few extra subheads would help—descriptive ones to help people navigate their way through the article. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 20:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly; if you can think of any to add, please feel free to do so. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to add a couple earlier, but I didn't save—I'm not familiar enough with the text, and I didn't feel confident that I'd properly split up the sections. If I do try again, feel free to revert if you don't like them. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 21:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (Note that this is a fairly easy one to fix, and if you disagree, please inform me). I started doing an image review when I realized that many of the images were quite unnecessary and poorly laid out, disrupting the layout of the article. There are a few galleries and several images below each subheading that are put right next to each other. A large majority of these images could be removed, I believe, and the article would be improved. NW(Talk) 01:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're the first contributor to call for the removal of images; others have been generally welcomed the use and selection of images. I would defend the current selection as being necessary to illustrate the concepts described in the text, and their removal would make the article much more text-heavy and less informative. I'd be interested to know what other editors think. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find the images informative and evocative; I think the article would be poorer without them. How well the layout works probably depends on screen size/resolution, but it looks fine here. --JN466 09:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also like the use of imagery. I have suggested that an image be moved and would be happy to see a couple of galleries broken up. But IMHO the images are right for the article. ϢereSpielChequers 16:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I shall strike my oppose, and make some comments below regarding which images I believe ought to be removed. NW(Talk) 22:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I agree with NW. Let me give some examples. There are many places in the article where two or three images are used, where I think one would suffice. Including so many next to each makes each image small and hard to see (few readers will click to make them bigger) and sometimes there is no need for the second and third picture.
In the "Border area today" section, the three images are hard to see, since they are so small. Spreading them out throughout the section would help this situation.
In the "Opening of the border and the fall of the GDR" section, the two photos both show cars on a road. Pictorially, they are not really that different.
In the "Deaths on the border" section, the two memorials are very similar. I'm unconvinced that both images are necessary.
In the "Escape methods" section, the images are all contained in one box when they could be spread out throughout the section and thus be bigger and easier to see.
These are just some examples of larger trends in the article: repetitious images and images that are not distributed throughout the article as well as they could be. Awadewit (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've significantly revised the images in the article. Please re-review and let me know what you think. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments by Tony1
Agree with Slim and Sandy.
NW, was it worth an oppose? BTW, I hinted that the dog pic (the one next to the superb helicopter pic) could be dropped. I hope my enlargement of some of the images isn't to blame for your impression of poor placement. Do let me know if that might be the case and I'll try to do something about it. I think the blackish map with arrows, from the propaganda film, could be considered for removal. Unsure. What does it add?
I found early on, when doing research for this article, that the Western side is massively overrepresented in the literature (or at least that portion of it available to me) while the East German side is very underrepresented. What I've tried to do with the article is to present and contrast the differing POVs of the two sides. The juxtaposition of the map and the shield is deliberate. The West Germans agitated for reunion ("the Fatherland is over there too"), while the East Germans interpreted that as aggression and revanchism. The image illustrates the East German state's justification for the border fortifications, i.e. that they were defensive. It's worth noting here, parenthetically, that the East Germans consistently portrayed the border in this light, even to the border guards, despite the obvious fact that the fortifications faced inwards and would have been completely useless against a NATO invasion. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, my feeling is that the selection of images (from an image-rich topic, when you look at the external links at the bottom), might have illustrated more graphically the appalling ugliness of the wall, the scarring of the landscape. But it's a minor point that I don't intend to be an issue here.
Chris, on the matter of the book Stasiland—you're right, it's not strictly academic in the sense of the standard practices of verification. But it does bring out the human side of the wall, and why so many East Germans were so desperate to risk their lives to cross it. If you want verification, a related film taken from a doco on the ABC last year gives proof enough of one of her subjects, and in the interview with two Stasi operatives, showed how at least the hard core of the militia and police really did believe the border served a morally justified end. My school friend who went to work in the GDR in 1988 to live out his socialist fantasy recently told me: "of course you needed the wall, the Stasi; to pursue their 'ideals', they were asking people to do things that went against some of the fundamentals of human nature; they had to force people for a greater good." Hmmm; I can see the logic in a very small frame, but ... However, there are many directly relevant links, so I respect your decision.
The WP.de article is rather short compared with this one. I've posted a note there asking for contributors' opinions of this article in the light of the coming anniversary.
Thanks for doing that! -- ChrisO (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My I reiterate some of the comments above: you've really done a wonderful job. I think the fact that you travelled along the wall might be a great topic for a piece on the background to the preparation of the FAC, for the (featured) "Dispatches" in The Signpost. Do you like that idea? Tony(talk) 12:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea, let me know (on my talk page) what you need. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awadewit
Oppose on criterion 3 (I have checked the images in the first part of the article - up through "Patrol roads". I will do the rest later.)
The Bundesarchiv images are templated in such a way that I can't work out how to add an English description within the template, and the template instructions suggest that for licensing purposes we're only allowed to use the original German descriptions from the Bundesarchiv. Could you let this one be resolved in slower time, as I will need to track down whoever's responsible for the Bundesarchiv images? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link me to that? I would think that adding an English translation in a different section of the image description page would be fine. Awadewit (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be several interlocking templates, all starting "BArch". You can see them listed if you try to edit one of those images on the Commons (see e.g. [16]). -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing you linked me to suggests we are prohibited from adding English translations on the image description page. If the description cannot be added to the template for some formatting reason, please add the translation to another section on the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll see if I can work out how to add the descriptions. This should be done by the end of tomorrow (24 October). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done now. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Hier ist deutschland.jpg - Please add a description of exactly what this object is to the image description page and its location (museum, for example). Also, is there an author of sorts for the object?
File:Grenzer nato attack.jpg - I'm not convinced that this fair use image is needed. The idea explained in the caption and the purpose of use seem clear without the image. I would suggest either strengthening the purpose of use by explaining precisely why the reader needs to see this image or removing the image.
Please see my response to Tony1 here, where I explained the rationale of using this image. I strongly believe that it is necessary to illustrate (and contrast) the differing viewpoints. I've expanded the fair use rationale to make this point. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a much better rationale. Awadewit (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Fuerungsstelle Behrungen.jpg - The uploader and the author are not the same person, thus it is unclear if the rights to this photo have been release. Please ask the author to indicate as such by signing on the image description page or using OTRS.
It's a cropped version of an existing Commons photo, File:Freilandmuseum Behrungen Turm 4.jpg, which was uploaded by the author. I've made this clearer on the description page. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Zonen-gaby.jpg - I'm uconvinced of the need for this fair use image. The purpose of use does not explain the need for the viewer to see this image. Please either strengthen the purpose of use or remove the image from the article.
I've expanded the purpose of use. The image is a significant contemporary reaction to the fall of the border - for which we otherwise have no visual indication - and is widely cited in the literature. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved rationale. Awadewit (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Postenweg.jpg - Please add an English description to the image description page. Also, we cannot verify that the author released the rights to the photo since the uploader and the author are not the same. Please ask the author to sign such a statement on the image description page.
The image was uploaded here to the German Wikipedia by the author (18:43, 22. Sep. 2004 Markus Schweiß 1024 x 1536 (205.830 Bytes) (Postenweg an der Innerdeutschen Grenze, eigenenes Bild, GNU FDL)). I transwiki'd it to the Commons while preserving the licence exactly as it was, and the original image was deleted from the German Wikipedia as a duplicate of the Commons image. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting on the English description. Awadewit (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the images that come from an archive need to have a bit more information. A person should be able to find the image at the specific archive without too much trouble. However, that would currently be difficult to do. Could a call number, for example, be added to these images?
I don't have call numbers for them. What you see is what you get, I'm afraid. (See my comments below.) -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you contact the library and obtain them? Awadewit (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only information that I have is that they're from archives of the former East German Ministry of State Security (the Stasi). I can tell you where the pictures can be viewed - i.e. principally in museum exhibits, where entire folders of Stasi papers are on public display - but I can't give you any more detail than that. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is now moot, since there aren't any archive images left in the revised version of the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these issues will be very easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
East German image licences
I'm going to need some advice/assistance on these images as a batch. I've commented on the images to give some background info; please advise on which tag to use. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Passierschein.jpg - Please fill out the description field on the image description page. Also, since this image is hosted on Commons, it needs to clearly indicate why it is PD in both the US and Germany. Please investigate and add the appropriate US tag.
East German transit visa. No attribution that I can see, no indication that it was ever copyrighted. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Inner german border diagram 1960s.png - Since this image is hosted on Commons, it needs to clearly indicate why it is PD in both the US and Germany. Please investigate and add the appropriate US tag.
Diagram from a West German propaganda leaflet. No copyright statement, no indication that it was ever copyrighted. Reproduced just about everywhere along the border at the time and in numerous museum exhibits, books and hand-outs now. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:East german propaganda leaflet.jpg - Who is the author of this text? The copyright of this image is probably partially owned by the author of the pamphlet.
It's anonymous. Leaflets like this were fired by the million across the border in the 1950s and 1960s, with no attribution and no declaration of copyright. There's no indication that it was ever copyrighted. Various other works (e.g. Gordon, Joseph S. (1988). "East German psychological operations: a 1965 case study". in Gordon, Joseph S., Psychological operations: the Soviet challenge) reproduce similar leaflets without any indication of authorship or copyright. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Militärische Berufe in den Grenztruppen.jpg - Since this image is hosted on Commons, it needs to indicate why it is PD in the US and the original country of the photo. Please investigate and add an appropriate tag for the US.
Cover of an East German propaganda booklet published in 1979. It's attributed to the East German Army but there's no indication of authorship or declaration of copyright. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Grenztruppen im Einsatz.jpg - Since this image is hosted on Commons, it needs to indicate why it is PD in the US and the original country of the photo. Please investigate and add an appropriate tag for the US.
Image from an East German propaganda booklet published in 1979. It's attributed to the East German Army but there's no indication of authorship or declaration of copyright. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Beobachtungsprotokoll.jpg - Since this image is hosted on Commons, it needs to indicate why it is PD in the US and the original country of the photo. Please investigate and add an appropriate tag for the US.
Image is of a document from a West German archive, displayed at an open-air museum. Attributed to the West German Border Protection force but no individual attribution and no declaration of copyright. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Control strip inspection.jpg - Since this image is hosted on Commons, it needs to indicate why it is PD in the US and the original country of the photo. Please investigate and add an appropriate tag for the US.
Image is from an East German propaganda booklet published in 1979. It's attributed to the East German Army but there's no indication of authorship or declaration of copyright. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Control strip footprints.jpg - Since this image is hosted on Commons, it needs to indicate why it is PD in the US and the original country of the photo. Please investigate and add an appropriate tag for the US.
Image is of a photograph attributed to the archive of the former East German Ministry of State Security (the Stasi) displayed at an open-air museum. Anonymous authorship and no indication of copyright. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Panzersperre lkw.jpg - Since this image is hosted on Commons, it needs to indicate why it is PD in the US and the original country of the photo. Please investigate and add an appropriate tag for the US.
Image is of a photograph attributed to the archive of the former East German Ministry of State Security displayed at an open-air museum. Anonymous authorship and no indication of copyright. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: This issue is now moot, since none of these images are now in the revised version of the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please list the new images that have been added to the article below so that I can check them? Thanks.Awadewit (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have asked the photographer, so it should be forthcoming. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only issue that stands in the way of me striking my oppose. Awadewit (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that image layout could be improved - see my comments above at the conversation.
Any response to my comments above? Awadewit (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bear with me on this, I'm reformatting the article following the discussion about length below and the image layout will change considerably. It should be done by the end of tomorrow (24 October). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still have some issues: 1) Why do we need two images of soldiers patrolling in the "East Germany" section? 2) Why do we need two pictures of trucks showing the "Western Allies"? 3) Why do we need two images of cars on a road in "Opening of the border and the fall of the GDR"? 4) Why do we need a picture of hikers in the "Border area today" section? Awadewit (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've missed the purpose of the images. They're showing different things, or different aspects discussed in the text, which I've tried to bring out in the captions: 1) The first image is an East German patrol on the border line supervising maintenance work on the border fortifications; the second is a specialised border reconnaissance soldier gathering intelligence on what was happening on the other side of the border (a frequently seen and rather iconic aspect of the border system, at least from the Western perspective). They illustrate two different aspects of how the GDR controlled its border. 2) The first image shows American soldiers and West German border guards working together; the second image shows a British patrol unit (without Germans, note). They illustrate (and contrast) the differing approaches of the Western Allies. 3) The images are not "of cars" but of border crossings. The first is the scene at an existing border crossing; the second is of a new border crossing cut in the fence. (This was the real significance of the border opening, that the hitherto inviolable fortifications were cut through.) 4) The image is not merely "of hikers", it is of hikers on the former border, as the caption says. They're walking on the old patrol road. I've added "patrol road" to the caption to make this clearer. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) The pictures don't really make this significant difference clear, in my opinion, though. 2) What are the differing approaches? That the Americans worked with the Germans and the British did not? If this is the contrast, it should be explained in the caption. 3) If the real significant is that inviolable fortifications were cut through, this should be mentioned in the caption. 4) I get that, but the fact is that the picture just looks like hikers on a dirt road. This article has a lot of images - if you want people to look at them all and appreciate their value, I think you have to reduce the number that are included. Awadewit (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article size
Will Supporting editors please comment on the article size; at 22,000 words and 136 KB prose size, this article is almost twice as long in word count as the currently largest FA, at 14,000 words, and would set a new standard, significantly higher than the article size recommendations. User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics. WP:SIZE recommends 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose, although some FAs have passed that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, this is a good point, and I have been thinking about it since I first read it in the WPGermany assessment. It is incredibly long. Yet,according to WP:FA?, there is no proscription on length, except to require that the article stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. Is there really any unnecessary detail in this? I didn't think so. It is incredibly thorough, to be sure, but I didn't see any extraneous information. Perhaps it should be broken up, but how and where? What are your thoughts on this? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My goal is to make sure that, when a new precedent will be set at FAC, reviewers have taken WP:WIAFA, which includes MoS, hence size, into account, and that a thorough review of precedent-setting items is undertaken. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say it, but the article is clearly too long. No, check that: it's way, waaayyy, wwwwaaaaaayyyy too long. For an article of this size, it doesn't matter that it's an impressive achievement; it's such a long web page that the sheer length hurts readers. We have to do better than this.
Here is a word count of the sections currently in the article, that I computed by cutting-and-pasting out of my browser (so it includes section headings and captions but not footnotes):
words
section
476
Lead
1409
Origins
2874
Development
1620
Impact
5484
Fortifications
581
Sea border
3613
Guarding
3623
Crossing
3573
Escapes
2997
Fall
531
Today
3474
References etc.
30255
Total
By comparison, Autism, a featured article that I help maintain that is currently too long and which really should be split up at some point, is about 7400 words (13,000 words, if you count its references).
These should all be replaced by brief summaries in the main article. The Sea border, Today, and rest of the Impact sections could be kept. Eubulides (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This looks reasonable to me, but I'm wondering what the original editor would think? And would you, SG, be willing to expedite the FA status of the process if he completes it, so that this could be, we hope, done in time for the anniversary? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that ChrisO is aiming for November 9 for worthy reasons and that this is a complex review, also for valid reasons; whether we make it is up to reviewer consensus, and whether Raul chooses it is a separate matter. The fastest way forward if a major article restructuring is undertaken might be a restart. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've also got to say I like putting in 4th level headers in the review pages. It makes added comments and so forth much easier. Please please may we continue to do this? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should discuss that at WT:FAC, where I can outline the pros and cons (I let them stand in the case of long, complex reviews, but there can be other problems). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've previously said on the article talk page that I would be willing to split the article to meet length limits. It would however be a yet further major investment of my time. I have spent literally man-weeks on this to date and it is, frankly, a considerable strain to spend hours every day for months on end working on this article. I'm okay with putting in some extra effort to split the article - which will require considerable rewriting, since all the summaries will need to be written and the loose ends tidied up - in order to meet the 9th November deadline. However, if Sandy feels that it can't realistically be expedited to FA status before the deadline then I would prefer to spread the work out over a longer period. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, the fortifications section would be a good stand-alone article for FA and the November 9th main page (assuming everyone agrees). It just needs a lead and a brief section to wrap it up. Then in the main article, reduce that section to a brief summary and a link to the main fortifications article. That's all that would be needed in the short term. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 21:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, and the others could be split into the breakout articles, with the main summary article pulling (linking) them all together. ?? I'd be willing to give a few hours of time to help you with this tonight and tomorrow night (I'm 0+5). But Chris, this is up to you. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in terms of expediency and the possibility of a restructuring or restart, working out Awadewit's image concerns should be a priority. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, just to clarify, are you suggesting that the FA candidate should be the fortifications section, split out from this article? Wouldn't that require a fresh FAC and wouldn't that mean that this FAC would lapse? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that Sandy was suggesting a restart would be acceptable. So far as I know, it wouldn't necessarily involve any extra time, if that's your concern. Any of the other sections might work as a stand-alone FAC too, but the fortifications one seems most complete, and therefore the least work for you. Or perhaps you were thinking of making them all stand-alones, but then continuing to have this one as the FAC, with the others referenced in it summary-style. That would be fine too, but it would involve a lot of rewriting. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 21:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both seem to be viable suggestions - though personally I favour the latter, with the spinouts, as that fits more closely with my original vision for the development of the article. I'd like Sandy to clarify whether he is in fact suggesting that a FAC restart would be acceptable, as I'd hate to put in a lot of nugatory effort. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A restart on this FAC would be one possibility if this article is restructured (and addressing image concerns as soon as possible would expedite any restart), but if you decide to put forward a different sub-article at FAC, then you would probably want to withdraw this one and re-submit the other one. Either is still doable timewise. I hope I understand the question; if not, I'll be out until later tonight and will check back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I'm totally exhausted and going to bed right now, so I'll sleep on it overnight and work out in the morning what I'm going to do. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I have enjoyed the article's length. Like some books, it's an article to dip into again and again; each time you do, you bring up something of value. --JN466 02:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the length, but I'm concerned about it because of the practicality of people on dialup and other slow connections reading it. Having experienced some third world internet connections in my time I think that subdivision would be worthwhile. I'd be tempted to spin out the section on the partition of Germany and have a "Main" link, also you could make more use of abbreviations, like GDR instead of East Germany. Currently FRG is mentioned twice, but both as an abbreviation of Federal Republic of Germany; Either both of those could be taken out or a large number of West Gemany's be replaced with FRG. ϢereSpielChequers 07:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's too long, but not twice as long as it should be. It would be a much more effective to mark the anniversary, and more likely to attract coverage for en.WP, if the whole article, trimmed, were promoted and—if Raul agreed—featured on the Main Page. Yes, "Development", "Fortification", "Guarding" and "Crossing" could each have daughter aricles and come down by almost half to about 2000 words each, saving more than 7000 words from the 23,000. I would be willing to work on a summary of one or two of these sections, if Chris thought it was a good idea. Couldn't the FAC remain under such circumstances? Tony(talk) 08:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With a view to saving text, I looked at the top: I couldn't find any savings in the lead, but I've just slashed and burned the first section, "Origins of the border", from 1321 down to 1021 words. Is it more focused now, and did I remove information that is germane to an understanding of the topic? Chris and others: what do you think? (I've self-reverted.) Bear in mind that there's also an article on the GDR; while much in need of renovation (I've just tagged it with refimprove and copy-edit notices), there's a bit of overlap in scope between that article and this one, and the information and refs I've removed from this one could easily be relocated there at some stage ....? If we are to seriously get this article down to size, some of the other sections could be more savagely dealt with. Looking for feedback on this, please. I'm certainly not going it alone. Tony(talk) 09:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS I like Eubulides's idea above. Tony(talk) 09:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having thought about this overnight, I favour Eubulides's proposed approach - retain this article as the FAC candidate and use it as a hub for a series of satellite articles spun off from the current sections (which should themselves be of FA quality after this review!). The division proposed by Eubulides looks good to me. I'll set up the satellite articles myself but I would appreciate help in summarising the sections in this article. Tony, I like your changes in the "development" section - more please! I'll come back to Awadewit's comments this evening. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, proceeding with my first-ever self-re-revert. I'll run through the sections that will be the basis of the "Development" daughter article, as suggested by Eubulides, if someone else will volunteer to do another bit (?). Chis, I'm presuming you'll take the current full version and shove it into the new daughter article for later work. The only negative is that there will probably be quite a bit of duplicated text until the daughter articles are expanded. I don't think that matters, does it? I'll rely on your scrutiny for text removals that you think go too far. Sandy, are we aiming to cut the whole article by ... a third? half? Tony(talk) 10:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aiming for anything in particular ... that's up to reviewers :) I just had to make sure that size was examined, since it hadn't come up in review, and this article was a significant departure from precedent. (ChrisO, each daughter article would have to be separately presented at FAC, and you could aim for a featured topic.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had been avoiding the size issue. Elephant in the living room. Pink elephant in the living room, probably. What elephant? So I'm glad you brought it up, Sandy. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aiming at this time to present the daughter articles at FAC. The parent article is the FAC target. I like the idea of a featured topic, but I think that's a bit too ambitious for the time being. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Development of the border" reduced from 2715 to 2001 words. I count the words in display mode. I'm hoping a higher percentage can be slashed from subsequent sections. Tony(talk) 12:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work, Tony - thank you very much. I've created the first spinoff article, Development of the inner German border, and further reduced the equivalent section in this article by combining the "origins" and "development" sections and making them much more concise. The word count for these sections combined is now 1469 words, including the captions, or 1338 without them (I don't know if we're meant to count them), down from 4,823 previously. I've combined the key images into a three-image gallery showing the three phases of the border's development. I'd appreciate some feedback on what people think of this approach and whether it is along the right lines, or whether some even more drastic pruning needs to be done. Some help will be needed in fixing/rescuing references. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather regretful. Some articles just need to be long because they comprehensively cover the topic. Subarticles rarely get many views.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Article_size#Readability_issues has notes on how to count text (only the main body of text should be counted). By the way, the article currently stands at 188 kB; I was surprised to find that Wikipedia:Article_size#Very_long_articles says that "articles over 400 KB may not render properly at all". The article is well below that, and on my system loads no slower than any other.
I am really a little torn here. Summary style is a reasonable, and standard, suggestion for an article of this size, and it's great that editors have rolled up their sleeves and started this process. But as we do this work, let's not forget that summary style also has its drawbacks:
The information ends up being more disjointed and watered down.
Subarticles with non-compelling titles attract few readers.
A set of articles with partially duplicated information is more difficult to maintain.
Some sections lend themselves to being spun out more than others. A subarticle on the fortifications and border escapes, for example, will probably find its readership anyway; these are compelling topics that people will seek out.
FWIW, the German FA on Plato ([17]) currently stands at 178 kB, compared to 188 kB for this article. I am not even sure Plato is the biggest FA over there. I am happy for this article to set a new precedent in the English WP. It is a compelling topic that lends itself to encyclopedic coverage, and the less of the "encyclopedic" feel we lose while addressing concerns about size, the better.
P.S. I like the third image illustrating border development. --JN466 12:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Size update: This morning, the article's main body of prose stands at 20,145 words (counted in MS Word, after deletion of tables and image captions). --JN466 12:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This morning my time, the current article size is 18,835 words; please see User:Dr pda/prosesize.js, a script that can be added to your monobook to calculate prose size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. We're now at 16,626 words of prose, according to that tool. --JN466 01:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute that this is a compelling topic and it is with regret that I raised the size concerns, but if this goes on the mainpage it will be seen by users around the world, and therefore we should be concerned about users with slow dialup connections. The German Wikipedia may well be in a position where it can assume that almost all surfers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland have connections that can handle articles of this size. But our remit is global, I'd be interested in anyone who has stats as to how many surfers have connections that timeout on articles of this size, but if the choice is between hiving off sections into separate articles and excluding some third world viewers, my !vote is for hiving off more sections. ϢereSpielChequers 12:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not whole sections, please. I agree with much of what Jayen says. A featured topic, as suggested above by Sandy, is one way of overcoming a few of these issues; but that is for after the anniversary. Chris, in the recent reductions in text, is there anything you feel sorry about losing from this main article? Tony(talk) 13:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too unhappy about it. I've focused on keeping the essential points intact while moving the expanded text (with illustrative examples) into the spinoff articles. So far it seems to be working pretty well. We're now down to 16,623 words (as calculated using User:Dr pda/prosesize.js). This constitutes a reduction of 25% from the article's peak size. I've slimmed down the fortifications section from 5,484 words to 1,372, a reduction of about 75%. The original content is now in Fortifications of the inner German border. I've also reduced the number of images in that section, which hopefully will address some of the layout concerns that Awedewit raised earlier. I'll do the remainder of the article tomorrow. At the current rate of progress, I reckon we should be able to get the main article under 10,000 words pretty easily. Some references will need to be fixed, though. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for statistics, the 2009-09-24 Economist special section on telecoms in emerging markets says that about 30% of Internet users worldwide are on fixed-line broadband and about 15% are on mobile broadband. The rest (i.e., the majority) are on slow connections. There is a particular problem in Africa, not only because of the infrastructure within the continent, but because of lack of connectivity to the rest of the world (this is being worked on, but it's still a problem). Eubulides (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And most of the world's population has no access at all to the Internet. Tony(talk) 07:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images are easily as much of a problem as text length for those with slow connections, but as others have noted to strip images from this article would be a significant loss. It is a reality that those without reasonable connection speeds are better served by the Wikipedia release CDs. Also, not all connections from Africa are slow: my connection from South Africa was perfectly adequate for browsing WP and the situation is improving rapidly. Article readability should be the primary determinant of size. Dhatfield (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed: Support. Thanks for bringing this up, Sandy. I am a proponent of summary style and must disagree with JN466 - well written summaries can make for powerful, attractive reading and I believe that interested readers will take the effort to dig into subtopics. The hard work and dedication shown here to address this issue show off the finest spirit of collaboration in our community. I regret I may not revisit this FAC before it closes but improvements to an already excellent article will not change my vote. Dhatfield (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct about the effect of images on load time, but one of the arguments put forward at WP:SIZE has to do with reader attention span, also. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the result (kudos!!) I am not unhappy; it was just a bit of a wrench to begin with. (And needless to say, I still support). --JN466 22:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-organising the references, as proposed above by JN466 (raised by Fifelfoo);
Resolved by JN466 Fifelfoo (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing the bug in the citation templates that is preventing editor names from being shown (raised by Fifelfoo).
Resolved by work-around Fifelfoo (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there are any more outstanding issues, please add them to this list! -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article has been significantly restructured, you might want to ping previous supporters to see if they're still on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I'm still on board with Support. Even more so now. I've brought up a couple of issues with Chris, but I don't see them getting in the way of FA for this article, once the references/bibliography/footnotes thing is cleared up, and I think that is underway tonight. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I'll do that now. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're done removing material from the article, I can do some work on the refs now. Ok? --JN466 22:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely. Go for it! ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trimming that article down; it must have been a lot of work. I found two images needing alt text, noted in my section above. Eubulides (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I read this when it was at DYK and was amazed then. Excellent, excellent article. Dincher (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I trust that the changes everyone is working on will pan out fine. My only complaint is the images; in those side-by-side tables, they should really be smaller than 240px, and stand-alone images that are 426px are way too big. I love images, but they can't overwhelm the text in the article. —Ed(talk • contribs) 05:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How wide is your window? They look fine to me. If they're too small, you have to divert to the full-res image, which brings its own problems. Tony(talk) 06:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My screen is 1280 x 800. Images like the first one in the "West Germany" section take up virtually half the width of the space devoted to text, while when the tables are on the left, like in the "Opening of the border and the fall of the GDR" section, it shoves the text way over to the right, which I greatly dislike. Basically, I think that many of the stand-alone images are blown up too big; take the one in the "Economic and social impact" for example. It's at 270px...for what? The text on the building is virtually unreadable anyway, so I highly doubt that 180 or 220px would hurt the appearance of the image. —Ed(talk • contribs) 06:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the images are too large. In particular the superwide multiple image at the start of Border area today must be redone: on my screen it caused the text to look like this:
Very little
remains of
the
installations along the former innner German border....
I suggest replacing side-by-side image pairs with top-and-bottom image pairs, as they're less likely to cause these formatting glitches (this suggestion is independent of image size). I also suggest omitting the size specification from most of the thumbnails, as the default will grow to 220px soon anyway. Some images definitely need to be larger than the default (the maps and diagrams, in particular, are fine as they are), but most of them don't. The 400+px images should be shrunk to 300px; none of them need to be that large. I suggest using default sizes for File:BGS-Hubschrauber Alouette II.jpg, File:Bardowiek transformatorenhaus.jpg (its wording can't be read anyway), File:Control strip hoetensleben.jpg, File:Sm-70 schlagsdorf.jpg, File:East german propaganda mortar.jpg, File:Border crossing, Oebisfelde DDR. Apr 1990.jpg; mark File:Zonen-gaby.jpg with upright. Please shrink the ~240px photos down to ~220px. As a general rule of thumb, explicit thumb sizes less than 300px are problematic because some users set their default size to 300px; so just leave the sizes alone or use something like upright=1.1 to make them a bit bigger. Eubulides (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This was already a superb piece of work, but the reduction in size has made it even better. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 06:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm support I supported above, and having read the new version, it only reinforces my admiration Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As above, the slimming down has only refined the content, leaving something more concise but just as comprehensive. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed Support I was concerned, when I saw the article was to be slimmed down, that it would see it 'watered down' - thankfully that isn't the case and the article is even stronger because of it. Just one comment - In the 'Crossing points' section, the term 'detante' is used, presumably referring to the thawing of relations between East and West - perhaps a wikilink is appropriate here? DB 103 245-7 Talk 14:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to confirm my support for this excellent article. Coemgenus 15:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image sizes and arrangement
Eubulides, I like the idea of verticalising some or all of the multiple arrays of images. The horizontal arrangements are causing ugly text-crowd to the side on my monitor (East Germany, West Germany, Crossing points, Escape methods, and Opening of the border—all squeeze horribly, yet would be fine as vertical arrangements). BTW, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the window width you establish for your browser, not the size of your monitor or its pixel res, that is at issue in the text squeezing problem, yes? If I widen a WP window, the next time I open WP, it stretches to that width; the browser seems to have a memory. This has a dramatic effect on the effectiveness of image arrangement.
As a tangential issue, when horizontal placement is chosen (I'm not sure it should ever be encouraged, are you?), surely there's a way of preventing the text from breaking up as you illustrated above. The site can't be that primitive ...?
While a few images could be smaller—the boot and the space-suit <grin>—why are some of the images tiny? I see that a few I enlarged have been made microscopic again, without regard to their detail and the relevance to the text and the other images. For example:
Phases of development of the inner German border
The border before fortification: inter-zonal barrier near Asbach in Thuringia, 1950
The newly strengthened border in 1962, with barbed-wire fences, watchtowers and minefields.
Ther first two require the application of a magnifying glass to the screen. In the first, surely the point of it is the sign, the gate, and the two figures. But it's impossible to make out these elements (except perhaps for the gate). The second pic looks like the backyard when my parents kept goats and horses. Isn't the point to compare these details with those of the "third-generation" border in the third pic? Impossible. These should be enlarged and vertically arranged.
I find the set of five images of the watchtowers and bunkers highly relevant; but it seems very hard to arrange them neatly in the course of the article. Suggestion: why not retain one of them, larger, as a normal, right-nested pic in the section, and place the rest in a gallery at the bottom of the article, with a footnote-link to it? The same for the border fences and wall, uncomfortably jostling against the SM-70 pic below them. The large swathes of white space are distracting to the readers.
The first map: thanks for tweaking, Eub. I wonder what the blue lines are, and whether they're relevant. Their meaning is not even explained in the Commons description page. Can the last bit of the caption be removed, since the inner provincial boundaries don't seem to be at issue, do they? It's a rather long caption.
The diagram summarising numbers of escape attempts is too small to be useful unless you hit full-res. Is that OK? I note that it uses "DDR", even though that is the German abbreviation and the article uses "GDR" consistently (no big deal, though). Tony(talk) 07:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like what is happening with this article. I suggest making the development of the border even clearer by changing the captions of the three images, carrying through the theme of 1st generation, 2nd generation and 3rd generation. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the first image is effectively the zeroth generation, as it pre-dates the fortification of the border. We don't yet have a first-generation image; I'm trying to get hold of one to complete the sequence. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fully meets the FA criteria. Amazing work. Ruhrfisch><>°° 17:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karanacs (talk • contribs) 17:54, October 28, 2009
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Third time nominating this article. Just finished a Peer Review, and copyedited. Like always, all concerns will be addressed as soon as possible. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments Dabs and links fine.
Current ref 1 needs italics on Montreal Gazette
Current refs 4, 49 have exactly the same author and publisher. In this case, author is a bit redundant so needs removal.
The Jenish book in the bibliography needs a publishing location like the other books for uniformity.
The Weir et al book in the bibliography is not used so needs removal.
With much thanks to Alaney2k for taking care of this before I even had a chance to address the comments, they are all taken care of. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were still some outstanding. Fixed them myself. RB88 (T) 19:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: The following images need explanation of how they are PD in the USA:
Oppose pending resolution of this. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, they were published in Canada, and was in the Canadian public domain as of 1996, so therefore in the public domain in the US. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; they should be tagged {{PD-US-1996}} in that case. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Looks much better than the first time, when I opposed. Didn't actively review at the second FAC, though I did make a few copy-edits back then.
Early life: "and he helped the Mitchell ice hockey team reach the Western Ontario junior championship." Did they reach the finals or actually win the championship? The article isn't entirely clear, and after a look at the source, I think "win the Western Ontario junior championship" would be an improvement.
Done
"In April he met with William Morenz, Howie's father". The first sentence of the section states that he is Morenz's father, so it's not really necessary to repeat that fact.
Fixed
Montreal Canadiens: Comma after date in first sentence?
Done
Awkward bit here: "In the first of the two game, total goals series". I understand the desire to avoid repetition, but it doesn't work grammatically this way. Needs to be rephrased slightly.
Went back to the way it used to be.
I've read through more than half of the Canadiens section and will read the rest of the article later. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments. Looking forward to the rest of your review. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Minor injuries led to his point totals going down for the following season, finishing second...". Try moving the subject (Morenz) closer to the comma, because the bit after it is unclear and problematic grammatically.
Changed that sentence a bit to make it sound better.
Legacy: There's already a New York Americans link in the prior section, so I don't think this needs to be linked again here.
Got rid of that one, and another link.
Personal life: Consider merging the two paragraphs into one. The section has a rather stubby look as it is now.
Leaning support – Quite a good piece of work, but I'd like to see Fowler's talk page comments responded to before fully supporting, as they seem like solid tightening measures. Once that happens, consider the first word struck. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Declaration updated per my previous statement. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree about merging the personal stuff into early life. I created the personal life section so that sentences like the one about the ukelele would be in an appropriate section. I think the intent of whomever wrote that was that he played it throughout his life, and it doesn't fit well in the early life section. So I don't think that was an improvement. I would not look for marriage details in the Early Life section. There is a duplicate sentence there too. Alaney2k (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved stuff around at the start of the article. Basically, I lumped the personal stuff into the "early life" part, and moved all the junior ice hockey-related stuff to a new subsection, "early career." That should take care of all concerns about it. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks. Alaney2k (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article, but the prose needs to be reworked a little. On the article's talk page, I've left some detailed comments on the prose in the lead and the personal life sections. Someone should go through the other sections as well. Some things don't seem to add up. We are told that the died of complications from the broken leg; however, it is never made clear what these complications were. One typically doesn't get a heart attack from a compound leg fracture, especially not a 34-year-old. Also, what does the sentence, "Though there were many visitors, Morenz often found himself alone in the hospital room, unable to move off his bed," mean? Was his perception of being alone and his bed-ridden state a result of depression? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything has been addressed. I look forward to hearing what eveyone says. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Status? This has been up almost three weeks; have provisional and leaning supporters been pinged? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Reply to SandyGeorgia) I have changed mine to support. Giants2008 says above that as soon as my (F&f's) talk page comments have been addressed his leaning support should be considered a full support. My talk page concerns have been addressed. Stifle has scratched his oppose and his last comment is "Excellent." So, that makes three supports and no oppose (by my reckoning!) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support. It's a good one, but a little spoilt by prose things that could easily be fixed. And the writer would then be flying to prepare more FACs without those infelicities. No need to ping me, but an audit of a few niggles outlined below would be good. Not a big job (2 hours). When done, consider this a support.
Infobox: do we need black blue black blue black blue black blue for the values and units? Looks like party balloons. I'm sure we've determined that common units should not be linked, even on first appearance, haven't we? And why stones and pounds conversion as well? Aren't Canada-related articles meant to have metric units as primary? En dash for year ranges shouldn't be spaced. Please see User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style#En_dashes.2A.
In regards to the infobox, I have no idea why it was designed that way, and I'm not familiar enough with code to change it.
In "Personal life", after after after after. Keep a watch out for close repetitions. "forward when" is one sol'n, but perhaps another can be changed too?
I removed some uses of "after," so should be fine now.
It's on the dense side of acceptable for comma usage (I've tried to move my own writing towards slightly fewer commas, actually). For example, one could be cut from this: "A friend of Léo Dandurand, the owner of the Montreal Canadiens of the National Hockey League, refereed the game, and told Dandurand how good Morenz was." And "years with a salary". At random, I see "The rumours ended on October 3, 1934, when Morenz was traded, along with goaltender Lorne Chabot and defenceman Marty Burke, to the Chicago Black Hawks for forwards Leroy Goldsworthy and Lionel Conacher, and defenceman Roger Jenkins." Consider removing the comma after "traded"?
I'm terrible with over-using commas; got rid of the ones mentioned.
Upon is a little old-fashioned, nowadays.
Removed both uses.
No contractions (MoS).
Removed all but the one from the quotation.
Chain link unnecessary: "in Ottawa against the Ottawa Senators"—the city is linked to from the top of the team article, surely.
Done
"Often" here is a bit stilted: "While recovering in the hospital, Morenz received many get-well cards, and his teammates as well as players from other NHL teams visited often." Perhaps: "While recovering in the hospital, Morenz received many get-well cards and visits from his teammates and players from other NHL teams."? Then startitis, a WPian disease: three instances, perhaps one unnecessary: "To pass the time, he began reading the newspapers in an effort to stay up to date with the Canadiens as they finished the season. After his injury, the team dropped in the standings, causing Morenz to worry. He began to think that he would never play hockey again and became depressed." There are redundancies, too. "To pass the time, he read newspapers to stay up to date with the Canadiens as they finished the season. Since his injury, the team had dropped in the standings[, causing Morenz to worry]. He began to think he would never play hockey again and became depressed." I fixed the tense and got rid of another "after". Do audit throughout for the handling of onset and finish as grammatical elements.
Done
Do Canadians still dot "Dr"? No big deal, but three dots within a cm.
As far as I'm aware, we still do.
travelled from Stratford.
Done
and not "came" again: "They called Mary Morenz and Cecil Hart, asking them to come to the hospital." erky. "Mary Morenz and Cecil Hart were called to the hospital; around."
Nominator(s): BUC (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I first found this article in this form, and just thought it was very poor. So I've been working on it on and off for over a year to give it a total re-write, remove piontless large amount of piontless trivia and added in refs where needed.
I withdrew the last nomination for this article because I felt there was too much still to do. I hope now having given it enough extra work, having given it another PR and contacted everyone that gave feedback on the last nomination. BUC (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
*I've put the logo removal debate up for a simple vote on the talk page here.[reply]
Support As per before. Took a lot of work, but looks great. Staxringoldtalkcontribs 22:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments which remain unaddressed from prior to restart:
Format of "The Star-Spangled Banner" is all over the place. It should be "The Star-Spangled Banner" (quotation marks included and linked) the first time used, then with quotation marks and no link after that. Never italicized.
So it should only be linked once in the whole article? BUC (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, generally things are only linked the first time they appear. blackngold29 16:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning Faithful (book) might not hurt in the aftermath. I'll leave it up to you if you want to include it.
In Game 1, Tessie should be in quotes and linked to Tessie, not Tessie (EP)
Double needs linked to the leadoff one by Damon, not the later ones by Rentería and Walker
In Game 2, God Bless America should be in quotes, not italics (this goes for all songs)
It states that Schilling was in "considerable discomfort", "considerable" sounds awful close to POV to me. A quote from the article would be better.
"considerable discomfort" is a quote from the article. BUC (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be in quotes and cited to the article. blackngold29 16:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The citation needs to be at the end of that sentence. Even if it means having the same citation after consecutive sentences. blackngold29 18:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Eldred came in to relieve Morris, after a mediocre performance, in the fifth inning." Again, mediocre according to who?
"had combined for just one hit in 22 at-bats" I hate the word "just", say ""had combined for one hit in 22 at-bats". Basically the same affect, no POV.
In Game 3, "...and the inning ended as a result." Not technically wrong, but you don't really have to say "as a result". Even stating "...score from third, ending the inning".
"Suppan suddenly stopped halfway towards home." adverbs bad, "suddenly" isn't necessary unless it's vital to the situation.
To say "stopped abruptly" is basically the same thing as "suddenly stopped" why do you need the adverb? Unless it's a quote from an article.
Well the article says "suddenly stopped halfway". BUC (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then put it in quotes and cite it to the article. We can't just copy and paste other articles without giving them credit. blackngold29 18:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Game 4, "Bonds and Ramírez also received", why the "also"?
Cardinals should be Cardinals'
What, every single one? BUC (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, heh, I must be seeing things. I thought one was there, must've read it wrong. blackngold29 16:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"17 consecutive post-season" nbsp
"3,000 Red Sox fans" nbspblackngold29 22:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason "Fenway Park in Boston, Massachusetts" and "Busch Stadium (II) in St. Louis, Missouri" are linked for every game? I think linking the first time would be fine.
"Boston Red Sox" and "St. Louis Cardinals" don't need linked again in the Statistics section.
I missed this the first time "President, George W. Bush" in the Aftermath section doesn't need a comma.blackngold29 16:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prose looks good. I won't support due to the logo, but the hard part is done. blackngold29 20:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you support it now? BUC (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yep, and I will keep an eye out for any pictures from the games. Good work! blackngold29 21:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportOppose, File:MLBWS2004.png fails WP:NFCC#8 as removing it would not affect readers' understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC) as the image has been properly removed and deleted; no further issues. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the logo is inherently part of the subject. Basically every other modern sporting event FA has the logo as the lead image for exactly that reason. Is File:General Electric logo.svg an unneeded image for General Electric? No. The logo is a part of the subject. Staxringoldtalkcontribs 14:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People seem very split on this so I'm not willing to change it at present, it was dicussed at length before the nomination was restarted before coming to the conclusion that it wasn't something that should effect it becoming a FA. BUC (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image removed. I didn't care one way or the other, but talks stagnated. Wizardman 16:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So did you just delete it without even discussing it. I don't like that, there was no clear consensus either way, you should have just commented on the talk page is there anyway to get it back? If not please File:2004 WorldSeries Trophy.jpg,as it's a more neutral image. BUC (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So I should've just written "Neutral: I can see both sides"? We both know that would've contributed nothing. I'm trying to help you get this an FA through the realization that that discussion wasn't going anywhere. Besides, if consensus leaned anywhere it was to delete. Wizardman 18:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but I don't want a "quick fix", if the nomination fails I don't mind, I'd rarther reslove this properly. There was no clear consensus yet. The discussion had not yet ended. Please bring back the image and wait for the discussion to end.BUC (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Read the page again and found a few issues, though some improvements have been made since I last commented. Still get the sense that the article could use a little polishing, but it's not bad.
Route to the series: "when Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter made a catch on the run before hurling himself head first into the stands." Hyphen for "head first"?
"Varitek pushed his glove into Rodriguez' face causing a bench-clearing brawl." Comma needed before "causing".
In describing Game 7 of the ALCS, you could mention the Johnny Damon grand slam, since that was the pivotal moment (not one I like to remember, but whatever).
Game 7 wasn't as eventful as some of the other game in the series so I've left it out. BUC (talk) 06:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"during which they each hit more than 30 home runs and 100 runs batted in". You can't hit a run batted in. Change "hit" to something else.
You can't? BUC (talk) 06:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"which meant the Red Sox had the advantage at Fenway Park." I remember commenting on this before, but the home team always has an advantage at its stadium. I think you mean they hosted four of the seven games, and that was the advantage. It would be better to just say it like that.
Game 2: "and two more singles by Johnny Damon and Orlando Cabrera, enabled two more runs to score to make it 6–1." Take the comma out.
Game 3: "After the next batter Albert Pujols was thrown out by Mueller, the inning ended." Comma before and after Pujols' name. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Important
I've put the logo removal debate up for a simple vote on the talk page here. BUC (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Status? Ten days, no feedback ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really need more people to give feedback on what to do about the logo. Otherwise I'm pretty sure I've addressed all feedback given here.
Issue with the logo now sorted. I wasn't happy with the way it was deleated but it's gone now nonetheless. BUC (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. On the whole, very well written. Nice. A few over-large paras, though.
Pity the image of the trophy is compromised by the background fence. :-(
"With the New England Patriots' victory in the Super Bowl eight months before, it also made Boston the first city to have" -> "Coming eight months after the New England Patriots' victory in the Super Bowl, the event made Boston the first city to have". Or the start as now, and ", Boston became ..". No "also".
Remove "of them"?
Watch the use of team names to start sentence after sentence in the lead. Couple of times it became obvious to me.
Not sure what the problem is. BUC (talk) 08:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caption: "then-career-high" ... any way of recasting? Apart from the grammatical awkwardness, it fails to wrap on my window width. "hit 46 h r, then a c h."?
You really want those Easter-egg links that readers will probably ignore? The way to fix them is to unlink in the body of the text (or work one into the grammar of a sentence in a way that doesn't hide the target with a plain year), and put the rest in the "See also" section, unpiped, i.e., explicit. Get more hits that way. It's necessarily fairly densely linked already.
Not sure what the problem is here. BUC (talk) 09:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Walker also hit the ball towards Ramírez in the next ..."—there's a good use of "also".
Pet hate: "his second error in as many plays". It's longer than "in two plays", and the back-reference is to a different grammatical element. Should be cleansed from the language.
Game 2: there's a single line trapped above the table (Game 3, too ... why?). I can't work out the bolding in the table.
That's the game's date and location. BUC (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Schilling image: could it be a little larger? Was he fat? Victory parade and last pics: tiny. Please note the new guidelines on image size. It's no longer treated as a sin to enlarge images (240px is often good, but it depends).
No metric conversion ok here? I don't know the WP convention in this context.
Bottom: dash then numeral I took to be a minus sign wrongly spaced. (–9) Tony(talk) 12:27, 24 October 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 about the last Test match of Donald Bradman, widely regarded as the best batsman of all time. He only needed 4 to end with a career average of 100, but was out for duck (0) YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support chiefly reviewed for 1c Fifelfoo (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Add all material referred to in notes to references section, at least at the publication level (ie, the almanac referred to, collection for collected works, information service for information snippets). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evertyhing in shorthand in the notes is accounted for in full in the references YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 06:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to accept that as a style difference between sports articles and my key editing area. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The match saw Lindwall at his best. The damp conditions meant that sawdust had to be added in large amounts to allow the players to keep their footing. The humidity, along with the rain, assisted the bowlers; Lindwall in particular managed to make the ball bounce at variable heights
Second sentence is a non sequitur. Is the paragraph about Lindwall or about the bowling conditions? I think this paragraph needs to be rethought. Gatoclass (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Haven't read this closely yet, but the last sentence of the lead seems off in its meaning. The fact that the team went unbeaten in their tour matches after this is not why they were given the name, as far as I can tell from the numerous other articles I've read on the topic. If I'm not mistaken, they gained the name by going unbeaten for the entire tour, as the body indicates. Should be a simple enough tweak to make, and I made a few simpler fixes to save the effort. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3 - File:Bradman 1937.JPG - This photo needs more specific information on the source (what issue of the The Age was it published in?) and an author. Awadewit (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, we try to fix the images so that they can be used. The new image also has a problem. File:Bradman&Bat.jpg - As this is hosted on Commons, it needs to be PD in both Australia and the US. Please ascertain if it is PD in the US or not. Awadewit (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jappalang says that because of some free trade implications and teh Uruguay round? anything taken before 1946, PD in Austtralia before 1996 works. This was taken in 1932 YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then please add the PD-1996 template to the article as the requisite publication information. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done. Wasn't aware of that template existing as Jappalang didn't use it before when he tweaked teh pic YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PD-1996 template is still missing. Awadewit (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport My issues seem resolved. I'm sure nothing else remains that won't get picked up. SGGHping! 09:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why the citation to the Don's CricInfo page contains a long quote, if it is just citing the bowled-for-a-duck incident, as the quote doesn't contain that information. Why not just the link? SGGHping! 12:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
English players cheering for an Australian? Surely not :P
Reference [9] after Washbrook's broken thumb, could be more to the end of the sentence to avoid having a dash coming out of a citation.
Single figure scores and wickets should be in words, not numbers (five, not 5) presumably?
That's true but if there is a succession of numbers, there's a rule about either spelling them all out or using all numbers, thus "5 and 18" instead of "five and eighteen" YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right. Of this, I was not aware. SGGHping! 08:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Bradman said" and "Yardley said" seem a bit abrupt and clumsy. Perhaps merge the first into the above sentence and then follow it with the block quote?
Morris' century was his 6th in Ashes matches and 3rd of the series, but how many was his tally overall? Or had he only played England?
I recall a quote attributed to Bradman about the difficulty of playing "with tears in your eyes". Is this an ubran legend or something he actually said? If so it would make a useful addition to the article. SGGHping! 10:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Reads pretty solidly, even though I still don't understand all of the cricket terminology and probably never will. The one part I didn't like was this from Day 2: "quickly displayed the exuberance of youth." Not sure how formal that is, but it's not enough to prevent me from supporting. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:37, 26 October 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 hope to see more content on Indigenous Australia at WP and this is the first of a couple of dozen artist biographies I am preparing, in aiming for that goal. This is likely to be one of the longer bios: there are a limited number of sources about the individual artists. To pre-empt a likely question: obtaining photographs of any of these artists is likely to be extremely difficult, and in the case of the deceased (not relevant in the current case), may be culturally inappropriate. I have approached one artist directly so far, and my request has been declined, though they have assisted in other ways. I hope the lack of photographic portraits will not be an obstacle, otherwise all the bios I am preparing may fail FAC :-(. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures aren't needed, they just show what the person's face looks like, it is their work and actions that counts. A lack of image is completely irrelevant YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 01:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Current ref 2 (Johnson..) lacks page numbers. The work is over 300 pages long, page numbers need to be included to help verify information.provided
Current ref 4 (Perkins...) lacks page numbers and is over 300 pages. provided
Current ref 5 (McCulloch...) lacks page numbers and is over 1100 pages. provided
Current ref 8 (Bindberg...) lacks page numbers and is over 400 pages.provided
Current ref 10 (Aboriginal Art..) has the publisher run into the link title and what makes this a reliable source?Good point. Source upgraded.
Current ref 12 (McCulloch...) lacks page number and is over 200 pages provided
Current ref 14 (Bardon..) lacks page numbers and is over 500 pages
True, however, in this case, it is a general reference supporting the reputation of the PT artists, and no particular page number applies.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normally at FAC (unlike GAN) it's up to the commentor to strike through when they feel that the issues have been resolved. I've removed your strike throughs but bolded your replies. I'll check the stuff later today (have to do some stuff this morning). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Actually, the hunt to upgrade those sources resulted in me finding a significant review article on the artist which I had somehow previously missed. So thank you for that too! hamiltonstone (talk) 11:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New image checks out, too. Awadewit (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good to have an article on this topic.
One piece of information the article does not give the reader is whether she speaks English.
We say she was born around 1930, and her first child was born around 1940. I appreciate the dates are uncertain, but would the sources support a somewhat more plausible pair of dates? --JN466 23:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Responses:
I will review some of the books tonight, but I do not recall any of the sources actually stating that she speaks English. It is not unusual in these communities for English to be the third, fourth or fifth language of the residents, and it is not impossible that her English is limited.
I have now reviewed the main biographies - McCulloch's (06); Johnson's Lives of the PT artists (08); Isaacs' article from AAC (06); and the entry in Birnberg (04). None specify what other languages she speaks. I do not recall it being mentioned elsewhere. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The text is a reflection of reliable sources. The issue is that the (very reliable) source that reports the first child's birth date is around 1940, is the one source that reports Makinti's birth date as circa 1922. Most other sources (some of them also high quality) state circa 1930. My solution at this point has been to modify the body text to canvas the two alternative birth dates that were until now only mentioned in the footnote. See what you think. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does Makinti herself say? Has she ever given interviews? Do indigenous Australians use the same calendar that we do? --MalleusFatuorum 00:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can only go on the reliable sources, but my understanding is that she was interviewed for the preparation of one or more of the reliable source bios. Pre-European contact, of course they were not using a European calendar, and this indeed may be contributing to ambiguity regarding years of birth etc. I believe this is why you will often see approximate birth years for the current generation of senior Indigenous artists. However, per WP:V, i'm not sure what to write about this in the WP article if it is not explicitly discussed in the source. All the sources say are "about x" or "circa x" without further comment. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My ignorance of indigenous Australians is awesome, but would I be correct in assuming that registration of their births and deaths wasn't a legal requirement in the 1920s? Was it with the white population then? Might be worth expanding on that just to explain the uncertainty about her dob/age. --MalleusFatuorum 00:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finally found a reliable source for addressing this point. Done. Any other comments? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that works. Striking my comments above. --JN466 04:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have done a little copy-editing (pls review), added a missing page number and a missing isbn number – it's a charming compact little article. Great to have an image of one of her paintings now; it's a stunner. --JN466 14:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Locality issue. User:Iridescent here expressed concern about the locality data in the article, indicating that there is a lack of links to locations that a lay reader could identify. I have revised the text to provide some more detail about where she was born, compared to the nearest wikilinked location, Kintore, Northern Territory. There are no WP entries for Karrkurritinytja or Lake MacDonald, probably because they are not notable and lack reliable sources for information other than their geographical location. If any editor has further views on this, i would be happy to respond. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article would be much stronger if an example of the artist's work was shown, as an image. Please make a concerted effort to get one. I realize that there are copyright and other issues, but still, this is an artist we're talking about, whose life's work is images. There is no legal or Wikipedia barrier to showing one image, under fair use. Eubulides (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I am currently having an interchange with Elcobbola on this subject however, despite an oversight on my part regarding the operation of Australia's Copyright Act, I do not think it looks promising. This is why I have included a couple of external links to example works. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That conversation doesn't address my main point, which is that the article can mention one image, and perhaps a few more, under fair use. In that respect this article is like the Roman Vishniac article, a featured article that contains half a dozen copyrighted images reproduced under fair use. For more, please see WP:FAIR USE. Eubulides (talk) 07:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is now a discussion of the image issue at Talk:Makinti Napanangka and I have drafted a proposed fair use rationale, for an image taken from one of the reference books, in one of my sandbox pages: User:Hamiltonstone/Sandbox2#Makinti Napanangka trial fair use box. But I can't resolve the issue if I can't get some feedback on whether such an image use is going to be acceptable. As an alternative approach, if another editor thinks they can successfully upload an image such as this one, then we may be able to adopt a fair use or free use rationale under freedom of panorama rules, but i have been unable to save the file. Some help here would be greatly appreciated. I am more than happy to write and revise the fair use rationales, but i'm looking for technical assistance and advice. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image added following discussion at article talk page. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:Support. A very good article on a subject about which I know less than nothing.
I've done some copyediting; please let me know if there's anything with which you disagree (I took a fairly free hand), so we can resolve it.
grateful for those copyedits, thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I share Iridescent's concern about locations. You say that Lake Macdonald and Karrkurritinytja lack articles; what about Lupul, Mangarri, and Alice Springs?
I have introduced Alice Springs as a reference point for her origin, and a wikilink. There are no articles for Lupul or Mangarri. It is hard to explain to non-Australians just how remote these areas are, and that there are a large number of Indigenous place names such as these which would be found only on the most detailed maps and in some cases, not at all - perhaps partly because there simply are no large scale maps of some of these regions. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that's as good as it gets, that's as good as it gets. Steve Smith (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This probably goes without saying, but I assume that your use of her first name rather than her last one is standard for Indigenous Australians?
You are correct, but it does not go without saying, so I have explained it (I hope), with a reference. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this sentence: "...while the story or dreaming most frequently portrayed by Western Desert women is Kungka Kutjarra, or Two Women, concerning the travel of two sisters."
I have attempted a clarification, though I was not sure whether I understood the problem. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly helps. I guess what I'm now a little confused about is where the eastern desert fits into Makinti's art. She's of the western desert, right? But this sentence appears to be saying that she blends eastern and western styles. Does she have some connection to the eastern desert, or does she just happen to incorporate its themes in her art? Steve Smith (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Steve, you've lost me. The Western Desert is both a region and a phrase used to refer to a group of Indigenous Australians. There's no Eastern Desert, and the word "eastern" isn't used in this article at all. So I'm afraid I can't see what you're driving at. Can you explain? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I had read the second occurrence of "Western" in that sentence as being "Eastern". Concern struck, and thank you for indulging a doddering old twit in the meantime. Steve Smith (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...her Indigenous cultural responsibilities." Is elaboration on what those are possible?
Actually, it didn't add much so the phrase has been removed. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty close to FA. Slightly more context needs to be established, I think, and maybe a little more polishing of the prose, but we're basically there. Well done. Steve Smith (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm going to be the first to risk the potential "how could you possibly support this when there's a minor MoS error in one of the image captions and one of the citations isn't properly formatted" objections, but I like to live dangerously. I do have one serious comment to make though, and that's that I think the lead ought to be expanded to cover Makinta's painting style. I think it's nevertheless a nice article that meets the FAC criteria and deserves to be promoted. --MalleusFatuorum 02:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pay attention, Mall, I beat you to it by eleven minutes. Still, it's reassuring to have company. Steve Smith (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just noticed that. Barsteward! :lol: --MalleusFatuorum 03:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - there are some minor language problems, but nothing that I really see as a problem. The article is short, to the point, and well structured. More comments might come later or I might just drop them directly on Hamiltonstone's talk page. I see nothing of major concern or anything that troubles me. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 25 October 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 is a joint effort; the text is largely mine, while the maps are the work of Ruhrfisch, who has agreed to co-nom. Nansen made only one attempt on the North Pole, yet his flair and imagination ensured him recognition as one of the architects of modern polar exploration. This is the story of that one expedition. Now read on... Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support All requirements are met-- the only thing I would change is moving the route map further down and replacing it with an illustrative photo. Shii(tock) 06:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I switched the map to the top during the peer review process, because I thought it relatively more important than "Fram leaving Bergen", the original lead image. If others concur, and my co-nom agrees, this can easily be restored. Brianboulton (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks too - I can see the route map as either the lead image or in the section actually describing the voyages. Ruhrfisch><>°° 11:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a style issue that's up to you. I'm mainly thinking about where people's eyes will go to get a brief summary of "what" this article is, and when they will want to look at the actual route (during the middle or end of the article). The map isn't as pretty as the old photos, either ;) Shii(tock) 18:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've done the switch. If no one comments adversely we will probably leave it there. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was one of the peer reviewers, I reviewed to FAC standards, and my issues were addressed. Those interested can look at my comments at the peer review page, which obviously there it no point in repeating. The article is compelling, well written, and meets all FA standards in my view. It deserves promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards support but I just finished copyediting this yesterday and feel it's too fresh in my memory to give it an objective review quite yet. A few quick comments:
I changed the presentation of the Woods Hole citation, as I was able to find the author's name and moved the 'project' name to the work= parameter. Just pointing this out in case you see any problem with my change; I made it in a single edit so it's easily revertable if something is off.
Regarding the lead image: I think it would be immensely helpful to indicate that all the movements were in a counterclockwise direction; once I understood that, it was much easier to interpret the map. I had a hard time distinguishing the pink from the red, though.
There are two instances where "he wrote" is rather awkwardly appended after a quotation of a full sentence that ends with ending punctuation (in one case an exclamation point, and in the other, a full stop). I'm sure you can find a more elegant way to present these.
I will give this a few days' distance before rereading and offering any further comments. As always, it's interesting and well done. Poor doggies. Maralia (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for yourcopyedits and comments. I will work on adding arrows to the map (may upload the png version first as I need help with svg files). Also realize I did not thank Niagara for converting two of the maps to svg and Beao for the third in svg. Would a more purple shade work? Or how about brown? Ruhrfisch><>°° 17:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded each of the "he wrote" formats. I echo Ruhrfisch's thanks for your copyediting. Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I switched to the png version of the map for now, with the magenta (pink) line replaced by purple. Is this clearer? Will work on arrows next, then svg. Ruhrfisch><>°° 18:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the purple is much easier to distinguish from the red. Thanks also for shifting 'Taymyr Peninsula' so the latter word is no longer obscured by the coastline. Maralia (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Note to Ruhrfisch: the words 'Taymyr Peninsula' could be made small, like the rivers. Brianboulton (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I have added arrowheads to the map and made the Taymyr Peninsula label smaller - may have to WP:BYC to see the changes. If it looks OK, I will attempt to convert it to svg. Ruhrfisch><>°° 15:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks very well written. I was wondering how they navigated in the barren and changing landscape, I saw the word 'sextant' twice but it was not wikilinked? I'm also assuming that it was permanent daylight at that time of year so no star fixes available. No useful maps available to the team either? Rather them than me! Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nansen had a sextant and a theodolyte (both terms are linked in the article). Of course, his ability to navigate accurately on the return journey was hampered because at one point both their watches had stopped. The only map they had was the incomplete one of Franz Josef Land, as described (and linked in Note 5) Brianboulton (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a glance at the other Arctic expedition articles, it strikes me that none of them have an infobox, I like to see the basic facts at the top of an article, many readers probably don't get past the lead in reality. It's a suggestion really for the project but I do think that an infobox could improve an already comprehensive article. The infobox in the Rolls-Royce Merlin article is an example of what I am thinking of. Adapted, it could contain the nationality of the team/leader, destination, ships used, personalities, date range, outcome etc. It would also fill the white space right of the TOC. Just a suggestion. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question "Nansen chose a party of just twelve from the thousands of applications that poured in from all over the world. One of these was from the 20-year-old Roald Amundsen, the future conqueror of the South Pole, whose mother stopped him from going." Was Amundsen one of applicants or one of the selected twelve? Jfire (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slight rewording should clarify. Brianboulton (talk) 10:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support meets all the requirements of an FA. Dincher (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3
File:Fram Bergen 1893.jpg - I'm confused why the date for this image is listed as 1914, while the description says 1893. Also, if this image was first published in London, we need a license indicating why it is PD in the UK since images on Commons have to be PD in the US and the host country.
File:ColinArcher.jpg - If this image was first published in London, we need a license indicating why it is PD in the UK since images on Commons have to be PD in the US and the host country.
File:Johansen1893.jpg - Please add the complete source information to the source field on the image description page.
File:Fram March 1894.jpg - If this image was first published in London, we need a license indicating why it is PD in the UK since images on Commons have to be PD in the US and the host country.
File:Nansen Johansen depart 14 March 1895.jpg - If this image was first published in London, we need a license indicating why it is PD in the UK since images on Commons have to be PD in the US and the host country.
File:CapeFloraMeeting.jpg - If this image was first published in London, we need a license indicating why it is PD in the UK since images on Commons have to be PD in the US and the host country.
File:Fram in ice 1896.jpg - If this image was first published in London, we need a license indicating why it is PD in the UK since images on Commons have to be PD in the US and the host country.
File:FramcrewOslo1896.jpg - If this image was first published in London, we need a license indicating why it is PD in the UK since images on Commons have to be PD in the US and the host country.
These issues should be relatively easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Responses
The 1914 date was a simple mistake due to temporary brain fatigue. I have corrected it to 1893
The Gutenberg book was first published by T Wolmer in London, in 1897, so presumably the same comment applies as you have made on the other London-published images.
Planned drift map: I have added the source from which the planned drift route was drawn
Johansen.1893: I have added the full source information as requested
With regard to the other images there is no doubt that they are PD in the United States. I did not transfer these images to Commons, and perhaps they should not be there? I am no expert on images, and the politics of the business confuses me. If you would indicate what licences Commons requires, e.g. {{PD-old}}, I will add as appropriate.
I transferred the old images from the English Wikipedia to Commons so we could have a {{Commonscat}} template in the article. I will work on the images. Awadewit - the svg maps are derivative images (from png versions). Are these OK as is? Ruhrfisch><>°° 12:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fridtjof Nansen died in 1930, so for all the images from Nansen's book Farthest North published in the UK in 1897, I added a PD-Old license with the rationale that it was over 70 years since the death of the author. I note that the book was also published by Harper in the US in 1897 with the same illustrations here, so if need be those versions of the images could be uploaded to Commons (that would be a last resort - too much work and Brian's scans are nicer on the two images I checked). Looking online, there also seems to have been a Norwegian edition in 1897, but I am not sure which was the first to be published.
The only image I am not sure about is File:Fridtjof Nansen - Project Gutenberg eText 13103.jpg. I tried searching for the author's date of death, but did not find it or any biography on her. I ran Check Usage on it and it is used a dozen times in eight different Wikipedias. We could copy it here for use on the English Wikipedia (as it was published before 1923 and is PD-US). I will clean up its information. Ruhrfisch><>°° 15:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS My first post of this had the wrong year for the publications - I have corrected it to 1897 (my thanks to Brain and my apologies to all). A link to the Norwegian edition can be found here. Ruhrfisch><>°° 15:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upload is not needed - I have added the "anonymous-EU" tag at Commons. I've stricken my oppose - thanks for taking care of this so promptly! Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the required standards. To address a few points that may be brought up:
Age of the sources: Most sources were written between 1800 and 1920, it is true. This is because there has been little interest in the history of the Inns of Court since then, either because people feel it has already been written or simply because there isn't the interest. All of the sources are considered academically suitable, and can be found in the Selden SocietyBibliography of the Inns of Court.
Lack of coverage of the 20th century: Again, few sources available. I have done the best that I can with tidbits from various books (an F.E. Smith biography, for example) and the Inn's website. Ironholds (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Is there a grammatical error here? "In 1720 the old gate was replaced by "a pair of handsome iron gates with peers and other proper imbellishments",[92] The nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw few major changes, apart from the introduction of plane trees into the Walks.[93]"
Also, some parts of the article use "13th century" and some parts, like the sentence above, use "nineteenth" -- is there a reason for this? Chensiyuan (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing where the problem with the first bit is :S. I'll try and standardise the second part now. "reason" is "I can't standardise within my own work" :P. I can't wait until I finish my article on Justices of the Peace and have to work all the capitalisation out. Ironholds (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the second bit - also added in alt text, which I realised I'd forgotten for some images. Ironholds (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What comes after imbellishments is a comma, but "the" after imbellishments is capitalised. Chensiyuan (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, got it. I've changed it to a full stop to line up, since I can't think of a way of linking those two sentences. Thanks for catching it :). Ironholds (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support on sourcing. I went through the page before FAC and I performed a standard check. From what I could get ahold of, I see no problems with the sourcing and I have no concerns. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I did a pretty comprehensive peer review. My points were all addressed, and I believe the article meets the FA criteria. Of course I may have missed a few points, but I don't think there are any major issues. A solid, and interesting, piece of work. Brianboulton (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I have done some fixes on the alt texts, which were generally not in line with WP:ALT. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that - never really done alt texts before, since my last FA passed before they were required. Much appreciated. Ironholds (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment The image captions are well below the standard of the text. The article title should not appear in the caption if avoidable, but several captions include "Gray's Inn". The lead image, for example, could be captioned better and more informatively as "View of X Square" or "View from NE corner". "A map showing a birds-eye view of Gray's Inn in 1677" not only repeats the article title, but what is a map if not a bird's eye view? Better as "A 1677 map". "F. E. Smith, later known as Lord Birkenhead, a Bencher of Gray's Inn" - he became Lord Birkenhead. Better "F. E. Smith, later Lord Birkenhead, was a Bencher" If you could give his dates at the Inn, that would be excellent. Please review all your captions. I've made two small editsJimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's sorta a compliment there :P. I'm correcting some of them now; a few, like the concern about the lede, I'm waiting on the word of others (such as the chap who took it. I can make my way around the Inn fairly well, but I've an awful memory for place names). Ironholds (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks; the guy who took the picture of X square can't remember where it is, and I won't be back in London until December. Suggestions? Ironholds (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's Gray's Inn Square, the much larger square to the north of South Square. I've fixed the caption, can't avoid using the article name, since it's part of the name of the square. Incidentally, your description doesn't mention that there are two squares, let alone name them! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's awkward to do so; unlike Lincoln's Inn the square setup has changed rather a lot over the last couple of hundred years, and it's difficult to a) describe them without a colour-coded map or b) find a RS that describes their current state. Ironholds (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the squares are illustrated. you need to give the reader a context to those images. At present, there is no clue where they are. It's not that difficult to say that the current layout consists of two squares, Gray's Inn Square and South Square in the southwest corner of the Inn's gardens, with the remaining buildings lining the east and west sides of the gardens. Needs tidying, but not impossible This is a reliable source for the layout, and it gives the name of South Square. If you think the name of the other square needs referencing, the Ted Smart (2003) Nicholson Greater London Street Atlas 15th edition published by Nicholson isbn 0583332919 p274 names both squares. I'm not sure it's necessary though. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okie-dokes, I'll fix that this evening. Ironholds (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Belay that, you did it. Thanks! :). Ironholds (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) ??? I don't think so - I made some minor tweaks, but not this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, sorry, wasn't thinking clearly; my mind was still stuck on "I have to identify the squares in the images". Right, will do that tomorrow. Ironholds (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've reworded slightly and added the ref, not so much because it's necessary for verification, but because the graphic is so helpful in visualising the Inns. I have no further serious issues, so I've changed to support. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks for the comments :). Sorry it took me so long to deal with. Ironholds (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportFifelfoo (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Decline 4/1c : confused coverage 1c. Five minutes in Google Scholar provided: The Rise of the Barristers: A Social History of the English Bar 1590–1640. By Wilfrid R. Prest. [Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1986. xvi, 326, (Appendices) 93 and (Index) 22 pp. Hardback £35·00 net.] ; Images and Cultures of Law in Early Modern England: Justice and Political Power, 1558–1660, by Paul Raffield (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2004; pp. 289. £50). This makes me doubt your characterisation of recent literature as non existent. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I looked at them; Prest's book is actually in my bookmarks (in the folder "Inns"). They're just of little use. For charting the evolution of barristers and the Inns of Court generally they'd be a great help, yes, and getting the central article on the Inns of Court to FA is on my to-do list, but they're not much use for Gray's Inn specific stuff. I've tried to provide some wider context involving things that affected all the Inns of Court, but the inclusion of a general history and evolution of the Bar is of no use when describing Gray's Inn as an institution. The coverage of Gray's Inn within the book is limited; see this search for evidence. If you were looking to upbraid me on my use of sourcing, btw, you forgot Gentlemen and barristers: the Inns of Court and the English bar, 1680-1730 by David Lemmings :p. Ironholds (talk) 03:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ta, but there's general social history in the current article not connected to Gray's Inn in particular, but the institution of barristers and the legal profession in general. See §Elizabeth¶2. So I'm kind of asking for why some generalised social history is important in Gray's, but not all. Though I think you handle the difference between the building and the institution well. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused; when you say "why is there some generalised social history in Gray's, but not all" - where's the generalised social history? There's some commentary on the system of education, but I put that in to provide some kind of context to the reader; otherwise it appears that Gray's Inn was just... there for about eight hundred years, and didn't really do much. I can cut it down if you'd prefer. Ironholds (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth¶2-3, Caroline¶2 seem generic to all the Inns. Caroline¶2 is confusing: is it about Gray's or everyone? Elizabeth¶2-3 could be fixed with context, "Central to Gray's was the system shared across the Inns of Court of movement towards a call to the bar: [educational ranking]". If you limited the context of these sections, I'd be happier about 4/1c. If you're going to keep it expansive, then I'm expecting stuff on how the Inns of Court in general (and Gray's as an instance) influenced the general social / institutional history? If you can call your limits better, and clarify if Caroline¶2 is about Gray's or everyone, and contextualise these floaty paragraphs in terms of their importance to Gray's then the issue of social history dissolves, and the article is no longer fringing 4 (no irrelevance), and is clear with 1c (fully researched for its scope, the context stuff won't offer the broader scope issue of general social history of Inns of Court and their influence in the UK). Greatly look forward to seeing your article on the Inns of Court system to FA. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greatly look forward to getting it there! Just to clarify; the ¶ sign is referring to paragraphs? It isn't a use I've seen before. If so, I'll get right on it tomorrow evening (long day of financial and equitable law lectures ahead. Ack.) Ironholds (talk) 04:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yeah. Pilcrow (¶) is often used to denote paragraphs. § for sections. Its not a severe 1c, its more that your context is not constrained properly. I check back articles through the FA process, so don't worry about urgency. Good luck with your lectures (Students in the 21st century seemed to attend lectures less due to the availability of textbooks... :) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What an original thought! :p. I find my textbooks are only of use to boost what I do in lectures; can't have one without the other. That being said my supervisor when I worked at a solicitors firm taught herself her LLB and ended up getting a 2:1, so I guess it is possible. Ironholds (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outdent: Right, I need some help here. I've got no idea how to do what you're asking of me; I clarified here, but other than that I'm at a loose end as to how to achieve your goals. Ironholds (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"] From 1640 onwards no readings were held, and barristers such as Sir Edward Coke remarked at the time that the quality of education at the Inns of Court had decreased.[30] " Do you mean at Grays or in general (this is the last problem para by the way for me). Fifelfoo (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, brill. I've changed it to make it clear (a problem endemic to all the Inns). Wording might need tweaks. Ironholds (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a tweak at the front of that para and in the second sentence (first sentence of exposition) to cue the reader that the entire para is about all inns, (and thus also Grays). Change to support. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3
File:1stEarlOfBirkenhead.jpg - Source link is broken, date is missing, and author is unclear. The license is claiming PD on the grounds of "life of the author plus 70 years", but the name and death date of the author are missing. Only a firm is listed.
All these problems still exist. I'm confused. Awadewit (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Gray Inn Badge.jpg - The license claims PD on the grounds of "life of the author plus 100 years". However, we don't have a death date for the author of the image. Please add this information. If it cannot be found, you can change the license to PD-1923.
I would also like to suggest moving images to Commons that can be moved.
These issues should be relatively easy to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will do the first one; the second one is more common sense. It was in a book published in 1848. That's over 160 years ago. Really, 75 works better; I suppose simply changing the tag isn't enough? Ironholds (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the first one. See my query about the second. Ironholds (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that we actually have to have the information to back up the tag - it's that niggly legal stuff (I'm sure you read something about that for this article!). Awadewit (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh [stereotypical British cutesy like "blast"]. Authors are so inconsiderate with their failure to provide licensing information for used images. I've got no idea of who did the thing (a woodcut, I think?) so I've just had to remove it. Bit of a pity. Ironholds (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, if you can't find the author information, you can change the license to PD-1923 and still use it. Please fix the first image! Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first image is still not fixed. Awadewit (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outdent: Right, sorry, misunderstood. Removing the first image (can't find the information), keeping the second with updated info. There we are. This FAC business is complimecated. Ironholds (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EMDASHes are unspaced on Wiki; alternately, spaced WP:ENDASHes can be used. This article currently has a mixture of four different types of dashes in the text: spaced emdashes, unspaced emdashes, spaced endashes and even hyphens. The choices on Wiki are spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes; please choose one and standardize. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed; should all be spaced longer dashes, except when the MOS demands unspaced (giving dates in years, without any kind of month or day, for example). Ironholds (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a quick glance, I still see a hyphen, and the article still has spacedWP:EMDASHes, which are not used on Wiki. They need to be unspaced emdashes, or spacedWP:ENDASHes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Switched over to unspaced emdashes, but I can't find the hyphen to save my life. Ironholds (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The {{main}} template is used when this article is a summary of the templated article; please review the use of main templates, as it appears that some of them might be switched to further or see also. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific about which templates need to be changed? Sorry to be a bother, but I'm not really getting the difference between this being a summary and a "main article" link. Ironholds (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For example, is the "Role" section truly a summary of Main articles: Barristers in England and Wales and Inns of Court SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I see what you mean; I thought you were saying "the Role section is a summary of.." rather than querying it. Is "see also", for example, an appropriate replacement template? Ironholds (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever template you think best, but be consistent throughout the article. (left a note above about the dash fixing still needed, in case you miss the interim edit.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, although I've left "members" as a "main article" linking to "list of members of Gray's Inn", if that's alright. Ironholds (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OTHERDATE and WP:MOSDATE#Precise language regarding use of date ranges that include "to the present"; these should be rephrased to something more precise, like since <year>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed; changed to "to 2009". Ironholds (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 10:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe this comprehensive account of Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie's "We Are the World" meets the FA criteria. The article has received a peer review, and I would love to see it featured for its upcoming 25th anniversary. Pyrrhus16 10:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph says this was the album's only single. What else was on the album? Humanitarian commentary and donation requests? Please elaborate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the We Are the World album was all music. However, the title track was the only one to gain a release as a single. Pyrrhus16 13:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can document that it was number one in nine markets, why are there only four succession boxes?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The succession boxes were already in the article when I started work on it. I can't create anymore because I simply don't know what "We Are the World" was preceded/succeeded by on the other charts. I don't believe that succession boxes are a requirement either. Pyrrhus16 13:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments All dabs, links, refs fine. RB88 (T) 06:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments Just a thought: Why not use this for ALL the chart archive refs for more compactness and the fact that Ultratop is probably more known and notable. RB88 (T) 06:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Done. Pyrrhus16 18:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huge problems with this article - see article talk page. I see that User:Iridescent had similar concerns on the article's talk page, which have not been addressed. 86.172.137.232 (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will respond to your concerns on the talk page. And for your information, User:Iridescent's concern was addressed and responded to. Pyrrhus16 21:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so - he made pretty much the same point ie there was no mention at all of the obvious inspiration for the single, rather than just a simple 'citation required' request. You might have added the cite (i haven't checked) but certainly nothing was added to the text about Band Aid being the spur. 86.158.130.245 (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Iridescent's specific concern was addressed with this edit. Pyrrhus16 23:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Media review - Images and clip check out. Awadewit (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to Support:
An impressive article about a song. I was rockin' the USA for Africa sweatshirt in 9th grade, and for once, folks were all jealous that I was stylin' and profilin'. Short-lived.
Can you add some backstory about the famine in Ethiopia, please? One sentence to say how long it had lasted and its effects, perhaps. I remember seeing Bob Geldof go on about how horrible it was to see. Images in the news were harrowing.
Added a bit on the duration and death rate of the famine.
I don't see a mention that most of the musicians in the room had just attended the American Music Awards and came directly from the ceremony.
"Do They Know It's Christmas" was also organized by Geldof, and preceded this song, but it is not mentioned until the Reception section. Was it not at least an inspiration to record this one? --Moni3 (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noted that "Do They Now It's Christmas" was known to the USA for Africa organizer and preceded "We Are the World". Thank you for your suggestions. :) Pyrrhus16 21:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, ok. Well done. Best of luck. --Moni3 (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport In general, this article is strong and well-written, However, I do have a few suggestions and questions:
The historic event brought together some of the biggest artists in the music industry at the time. - "Biggest" is a vague word - do you mean "most influential" or "most famous" or what?
Prior to the writing of "We Are the World", American entertainer and social activist Harry Belafonte had sought for some time to have a song recorded by the biggest artists in the music industry at the time. - The same issue arises in this sentence.
Changed both to "most famous".
Other individuals were disappointed that the song did not challenge why famines occur in the first place, and felt that the lyrics were self-aggrandizing. - Who are these individuals? Are they critics, too? Again, this is a bit vague.
Added that it was the rock music community that felt this.
The guide was shipped by Federal Express, who paid the bill in the spirit of the event. - Is this detail necessary? It feels like an advertisement for FedEx to me.
Removed.
The cause of his absence has differed in reports: one claimed that the singer did not want to record with other acts. - Awkward wording
Split into two sentences.
Is there more analysis of the music itself that could be presented in the "Music and vocal arrangements" section? I felt that the song itself was not really explained from a musical standpoint.
I couldn't find any free analysis of the music online, and there is none in my books.
What kinds of subscription sites would you need to check? Awadewit (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at other FA music articles, I think some of the analysis comes from sheet music sites. However, most of the sites that provide descriptive analysis (as opposed to just the plain sheet music) focus on the newer pop songs and are written as the track is being released. Pyrrhus16 22:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"We Are the World" was eventually cited as the biggest selling single in both U.S. and pop music history. - Perhaps "as of yet"?
Elton John's 1997 version of "Candle in the Wind"—a tribute to Princess Diana—later claimed the status of biggest selling single of all time. - What is the distinction between the above sentence and this one? I don't understand.
The "Candle in the Wind" footnote should have read "pop single" as well. It eventually surpassed WATW to become the biggest selling pop single.
A school student, when asked her thoughts on the idea of a charity single, revealed that if she were an Ethiopian, she would be happy that somebody cared for her. - Why are we including this random person's view?
Removed.
The third paragraph in "Notable live performances" seems to be more about Jackson than "We Are the World" - it is necessary to have this entire paragraph?
Removed.
I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copy-edit and suggestions. Pyrrhus16 22:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Striking all but one - see question above. Awadewit (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am now supporting this article. Awadewit (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
The first section ("background and writing") features a picture of Michael Jackson. I am aware that this picture is from the public domain, which is an indication that it can be used eagerly and freely, but what significance does it add to the section? Jackson is simply waving to the crowd, not doing something that could visually enhance the reader's understanding of the song's conception. Could it possibly be added to the credits akin to the other pictures?
In the charts section, a citation follows each "peak position". These citations are clunky and repetitive, which basically makes them eyesores. I noticed that only two references are used, and would recommend that both be placed next to "peak position" in the column, reducing their appearances.
The writing is not up to par in places throughout the article. For example, in the final paragraph in the "notable live performances" section (in which Jackson's death is described), there is a comma splice in the first sentence. The second sentence states his memorial service was "several weeks later"; is it possible to clarify exactly how many weeks later? His death was exceptionally momentous and I am positive the date of the memorial can be located. A few sentences later: "The singalong of "We Are the World" was lead by Darryl Phinnessee, who had worked with Jackson since the Dangerous era". The album was evidently titled Dangerous, but the article does not state it as such. This sentence otherwise reads strangely (the era was dangerous?).
The writing is overall good, but there are other weak areas here and there, such as referring to "We Are the World" as a song, a single, an anthem, a track... too many names. The recording section is unbelievably lengthy and begins reading like a diary entry: "At 10.30 pm, each of the performers took his or her position". Another paragraph in that section describes Stevie Wonder and a heated debate which provides so much insight that it diverges from the primary information and becomes extra "fodder"; if people were interested in all the arguments and details that transpired during the recording process, we could write a book. We are, however, writing an encyclopaedia.
I feel that a picture of a song writer does help a reader understand the composition of a track. If they know what the musician looked like at the time of writing, it aids them in picturing the individual at work. Jackson songs in particular are associated with specific looks and eras. The image in this article allows the reader to pinpoint which time period the song was written in within Jackson's career, as well as within the music industry. For that reason, I'm against removing the picture.
Done.
Fixed your highlighted concerns and looking for any other grammatical errors. I'm terrible with punctuation though, so I may not notice all of them.
Trimmed some of the info, but don't want to drastically shorten it; a lot of the detail is well documented and important to the history of the song.
Could you give specific areas of concern if you have the time? Again, I don't want drastically shorten important details.
Will try to find them.
Thanks for your suggestions. Pyrrhus16 19:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support placeholder opposeComments - beginning a lookover now. The prose is repetitive in places with a far bit of redundancy which I am trying to address. Ditto overuse of passive tense. Very nearly there but I feel there are some issues below which really need to be dealt with before it gets over the line. Improved, the prose could do with some tightening and I will make another run-through, but not enough to oppose now. I will make some straightforward changes and note queries below: Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Wonder was rarely available to work on the project, - flows oddly, why not "As Wonder had limited time to work on the project,"
Done.
Performed live on numerous occasions, "We Are the World" demonstrated that diverse musicians could productively work together - unnecessary statement - no precedent has been set here. Diverse large groups of people have been playing together for centuries. I'd actually drop this whole sentence (see next).
Done.
and started a movement within the pop music industry to create songs that address humanitarian issues. - is untrue as Band-aid's effort preceded this.
Removed sentence.
Several members of the public bought more than one copy of the single, some buying up to five copies of the record - this just sounds bizarre - maybe "People reported they bought more than one copy of the single, some buying up to five copies of the record" or something similar.
Still oppose (I am IP 86.172 above). Still nothing in the lede about DTKIC: its mention comes far too late in the text. It's like writing about Michael Jackson without mentioning the Jackson Five: the career and progress of the one came directly out of the other. I'm not trying to turn this into a competition between DTKIC and WATW. I just think that for this to be a featured article, and yet to omit a massive part of the story of the genesis of WATW, would be a travesty.
DTKIC was not omitted; it was mentioned in the appropriate section. I have now added a further mention in the lead. Pyrrhus16 20:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have major problems, still. Pyrrhus seems to have brushed aside various objections on the articles talk page with an 'oh well, it's what the cites say so it must be true.' But if the cited "facts" are clearly no such thing, should they be allowed to remain - or at least remain unchallenged, without caveats? To read this article, you'd think WATW achieved everything and DTKIC nothing in raising global awareness. WATW has to be set in its proper historical perspective. This just reads like a hagiography, and is seriously unbalanced.86.147.162.146 (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't brushed aside anything; I've responded to your objections by stating that everything in the article is factually accurate. This article is about WATW, not a novel about what DTKIC achieved. If I wanted a hagiography, I wouldn't have mentioned the negative reviews the song received. Pyrrhus16 20:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
86.147.162.146, if there are points of vew you feel are missing from the article, please find reliable sources that express them. Wikipedia's articles are built using already-published sources, not the opinions of its editors. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could the year be added to the first sentence (i.e., "...is a 1985 song and charity single..."). I had to search for a bit; it's in the infobox but it should be in the prose as well, and easier to find. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 15:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I understand the concerns about US-centrism, but it appears to me that the text has been improved to address issues of the relationship between DTKIC and WATW, while it is not clear to me, per comment by Awadewit, that any reliable source info has been brought forward that would necessitate more radical change to the text on this point. The article is otherwise detailed and well-written. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The toolbox reveals a few dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dead links removed. Pyrrhus16 23:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article uses both US and U.S.; please make it consistent. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"To date, it has sold more than 20 million units and raised over $63 million for humanitarian aid in Africa and the US." What does "to date" mean? Please use a date instead. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Amagi class was part of an ambitious plan by the Japanese to increase the fighting power of their fleet to be on par with the United States. However, their signing of the Washington Naval Treaty forced the battlecruisers to be redesigned as aircraft carriers. Only one ever saw service in this role (Akagi) because the other (Amagi) was severely damaged in Tokyo's 1923 earthquake. Thanks for any reviews you can provide; Parsecboy and I will respond as soon as we are able to and comments or questions. Cheers, —Ed(Talk • Contribs) 13:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I would have thought that was worth adding to the article. ϢereSpielChequers 05:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree that the earlier ships should be included in this article (the articles on the ships themselves would be better), but you are right on the mountain information. I'll see if I can find an RS for it. —Ed(Talk • Contribs) 22:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and yes I take your point about the earlier ships. ϢereSpielChequers 17:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found a RS for it. Interestingly, Conway's says that Takao was not named for the mountain (she was named for a town on Formosa/Taiwan instead, apparently). —Ed(talk • contribs) 17:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What edition of Conway's? My copy of All the World's Battleships: 1906-Present says "All four ships named after mountains." It's the same in my copy of All the World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921. Parsecboy (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O_o My copy of 1906–1921 says "[a]ll named after mountains except Takao, a town.". I'm guessing mine is the 2006 edition, as it has reprinting dates of 1986, 1997, 2002 and 2006 in the front... —Ed(talk • contribs) 19:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. You know what it was? I was looking at the Kongo class section (Cam got me all confused :) ) Parsecboy (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Support All of my issues are now cleared. --Brad (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Need convert templates throughout the article for knots, nautical miles, and tons.There are also conversions missing where others already have conversions.
I recommend a "blue link" cleanup. There are some too common terms that don't need them.
In the last section there are phrases "blazing wreck" and "raging fire". Those need toning down.
You need OCLC numbers on your book references. --Brad (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting these issues have not yet been addressed. --Brad (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Naval Historical Center was renamed last December to Naval History & Heritage Command. I've fixed those references in addition to bringing in the cite DANFS templates. I've unstruck the OCLC problem as the new references brought in do not have the numbers. --Brad (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the cite fixes. I'd like to point out that you are stating some "need"s that are not requirements per WP:WIAFA, though: it is not necessary to use conversion templates, nor is it required to provide OCLCs. It's often preferable not to use conversion templates (as long as conversions are offered) since using many templates increases load time. OCLCs are just one type of (proprietary) identifier—all that is required is that enough information is provided to make the source distinctly identifiable, and an ISBN is certainly sufficient. I've noted your concerns, though, and will try to address them. Maralia (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conversions as noted above still need to be done. It does not matter to me if the template is used or not but the conversions still need to be done (25 days later). I'll knock off the tangent about the OCLC numbers but should point out that the time you spent arguing against them could have been spent adding them. --Brad (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but this isn't my FAC. I 'argued', as you describe it, because I feel it is important at FAC to distinguish requests from requirements; others not familiar with the criteria could have concluded from your requests that conversion templates and OCLC numbers are mandatory, and in that direction lies nominator confusion and even instruction creep. In any case, I have made sure now that conversions are offered for all units, with the exception of "tons" because the existing text does not specify whether the given figures are in metric tons or long tons. Ed and/or Parsecboy will need to address this. Maralia (talk) 05:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my above comment; I just realized how snippy it sounded. I have fixed up more of the converts but tons still need clarification as noted. I don't think it's very fair for the nominators to vanish leaving you to clean things up. Otherwise the article would have failed already. --Brad (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't vanished, though I certainly haven't been doing as much as I can. :/ Thank you both very much for your comments for your comments and help. I'm working on the tons, have to hunt through Conway's to see which ones he is referring too. —Ed(talk • contribs) 02:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the near-equivalence of long and metric tons and the fact that the Washington Naval Treaty treats them as substantially equivalent,[26] I would think that conversions from one to the other are unneeded to qualify a ship article for FA. Ships consume more than that difference in a day. A link to the measure used should be sufficient. Kablammo (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(out) - I believe that Conway's uses metric tons, based on page 145's assertion that the German capital ships is in "'long' tons of 1016kg; thereafter metric tonnes (of 1000kg) are used." I'll change the article accordingly right now. —Ed(talk • contribs) 17:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi 1925.jpg - I am not sure if this is eligible for inclusion on Commons and would appreciate if a second image reviewer could take a look at this. To reside on Commons, it needs to be in public domain in both Japan and the United States. The shot was taken in 1925, which definitely makes it PD in Japan. However, Japan did have copyright relations with America on January 1, 1923 according to Wikipedia:Non-US_copyrights. Per Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights#Subsisting copyrights, I don't believe that this image falls into public domain in the United States. I would definitely appreciate a second opinion here though.
Regards, NW(Talk) 03:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does this section on Japan come into play? It seems to say that the US didn't have copyright relations with Japan between 1906 to 1956, which would mean that this image was already in the public domain by the time copyright relations were reestablished, which would mean the copyright could not be renewed under the 1996 URAA. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it seems that I misread that paragraph when I first looked at it; I thought it had said "Any works produced after the abrogation and the reinstitution of copyright relations on April 28, 1956 were ineligible for U.S. copyright at the time". With that statement, it seems clear enough to me that the image is in public domain in Japan. All the images look good then. NW(Talk) 16:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this conversation, since the image was already PD by the time the URAA came into effect in 1996, the image was not renewed for copyright protection in the US, so we're free to use it on Commons. Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's really quite odd; it appears as a thumb here but when you click on it, it says Commons doesn't have a file under that name. Somehow it managed to disappear from the servers without being deleted. Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh; it has an em-space in the filename, after the "Akagi" but before the "3". Some part of Wikimedia is changing it to a regular space before trying to find the page, but the page is stored using the em-space, so it doesn't work. If you use an actual em-space in the JPG URL (like 3deck.jpg here) it works, but I can't figure out how to see the file page anymore. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did some file manipulation and moved the file (which commons sysops can now do again) to File:JapaneseAircraftCarrierAkagi3Deck.jpg, so that image works. On the other hand, it needs English translations for everything. NW(Talk) 19:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot NW. I'll get the translations using Google Translate. —Ed17(talk • contribs) 20:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. NW(Talk) 01:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - This article seems to describe everything one would want to know about a ship. It is clear and seems to be comprehensive. The sources are reliable. Once the image issues below are resolved, I support fully:
There is a clause in Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Japan that seems to indicate that the copyrights applied retroactively after 1956. If that is the case, these images would not be in the public domain in the United States. I'll see if I can get someone else to double check this. NW(Talk) 02:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the section in question was rewritten to include more information. However, since the images were already PD in Japan when the URAA came into effect in 1996, the copyright wouldn't have been renewed in the US. Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this still hasn't been resolved. I've responded there as well. Awadewit (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Elcobbola's response, please! Awadewit (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article needs a copyedit, perhaps by someone less close to it. Some observations:
There are a remarkable number of "howevers". Please look at a style guide regarding usage of the word, and try to vary your terminology. Many of the "howevers" can (and should) be eliminated, or replaced by other words.
Yep, that was my 'go-to' word back in the day... I'm glad that I have gotten away from it in the articles I have written since this one. I'll address these concerns tomorrow after I sleep. Thanks! —Ed(talk • contribs) 04:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Planned" is also overused. Instead of saying the ships "had a planned x", or "were planned to be x", why not just: the ships "were to be x", at least in some cases? Again, vary the terminology, and in many casess, less is better.
Carefully look at the text. The "Amagi design" was not "an enlarged version of [a battleship]"; it was a design for a battleship, not the ship itself.
The last sentence of first paragraph of Background expresses several thoughts. Consider breaking it up.
Third paragraph of this section, first sentence: "there was still authorization" is stilted.
Next paragraph: "compromised down". Consider rewording.
These are just some examples. An independent look by a copyeditor would be helpful, if you can find one. Kablammo (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"3.875 in (98 mm) thick deck armor was planned.[1]"—Could you re-arrange the sentence so the numerals don't start? Perhaps "A ..."? And they were planned; does that imply that it didn't happen?
Comment The article is wrong, Takao was named after a mountain E of Kyoto. Loosmark (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is your source? I would be inclined to agree, give the Japanese's ship naming conventions of the time, but Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships 1906–1921 says that it is the town. —Ed(talk • contribs) 19:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a direct source for the Battlecruiser however I went to check in Lacroix and he states that the heavy cruiser Takao was named after a mountain. Loosmark (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps the later ship was named after the mountain, but I have to go with Conway's and say the town for the battlecruiser. Apologies, —Ed(talk • contribs) 00:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the names Takao and Atago were simply re-used for the heavy cruisers. It is highly unlikely that they changed the name connection, not to mention that no warship of the IJN was named after a city. Apart from that it's not like Conway's is exactly the best source when it comes to Japanese ships. Do they even have a source for their claim? Loosmark (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the corresponding Japanese article indicates that the original name of the fourth ship was to be Ashitaka, presumably (OR alert!) after Mount Ashitaka in Shizuoka prefecture. I am ignorant of Japanese; does it mean anything that the Japanese article gives the name of the fourth ship as 高雄, which matches Kaohsiung (old Takao city), while Mount Takao is given as 高尾(山)? Maralia (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maralia, you appear to be correct in that the battlecruiser and the heavy cruiser used different kanji for their names but which happened to be pronounced the same, thus causing our confusion. Cla68 (talk) 05:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Oops, never mind, after searching around I found that both cruisers had identical kanji in their names. I'll try to confirm which was which. Cla68 (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Peattie's Kaigun, Watts, and Jentschura and unfortunately none of them say what the battlecruiser was named after. I looked at LaCroix and it states that the cruiser was named after the mountain, but doesn't specifically say that the battlecruiser was named after the same mountain, instead simply stating that the battlecruiser happened to use the same name. I would say that the source used here stating that the battlecruiser was named after a city is fine. Cla68 (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The experts here (not a reliable source in and of itself) state that the battlecruiser was named after the mountain. I guess now I would suggest stating in the article, if desired, that one source (Conway) states that the ship was named after a city while Lacroix states that it was named after the same mountain as the heavy cruiser. Cla68 (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My gut feeling is that Conway just got it wrong. Why would they name a battlecruisers after a city if that goes completely against their naming conventions? It just doesn't make any sense. Loosmark (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing! :-) Alright, I can do that if I get a page number for Lacroix. —Ed(talk • contribs) 02:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have been asked to copyedit the article; anyone planning to review it for prose/MOS might want to hold off a day or so until I have finished. Maralia (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Maralia. —Ed(talk • contribs) 00:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed my copyedit and will post a review tomorrow. Maralia (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: sourcing is good: checked sources, added a citation line for an appropriate Tertiary (Navweaps.com) Fifelfoo (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Decline: checked again at 05:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC), still referencing Midway's battle history off an inappropriate tertiary. Added two citations to references section, those refs need an editor to fully expand. Fifelfoo (talk). Was: incorrect citation, makes reference non RS, makes reference unverifiable. As a Tertiary source articles must be named and signed by an author, "Tucker, Spencer E.; Roberts, Priscilla Mary; Greene, et. al., Jack (2005). World War II: A Student Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. ISBN1851098577. OCLC 57311334." // ^ Tucker, Roberts, et. al. (2005), p. 995 ^ Tucker, Roberts, et. al. (2005), p. 613 ^ Tucker, Roberts, et. al. (2005), pp. 846–847. If this Encyclopedia isn't a scholarly encyclopedia, I hope they've cited their secondary sources so you can locate them. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. What makes it a non-reliable source? —Ed(talk • contribs) 01:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ed (I'm not trying to be inflammatory here). We're an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia shouldn't cite other encyclopedia. Historians (and I see this as a military history article), cite encyclopedias as reliable sources in very specific ways. Where an Encyclopedia can be cited: The article has been written by a specialist. The specialist has signed the article with their own name. An appropriate citation could look like "Blogs, "Amagi class" in "World War II: A Student Encyclopedia" Eds. [such and such]". Unfortunately, for me, the phrase "A Student Encyclopedia" triggers massive warning signs about the quality and reliability of such a source. I'm asking if you can provide additional information here, and then incorporate it into the article, to demonstrate why we should trust this source. See: Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#History for why I'm concerned about encyclopedia citing encyclopedia, especially for claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. :-) Well, the information there is mostly general stuff; I believe that I can find it in many places. I'll hunt around tomorrow after a good sleep and see what I can do. —Ed(talk • contribs) 05:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the same Spencer Tucker that I had problems with here? If so I recommend the whole source be pitched in the dumpster. I found some glaring errors in his work if they're the same author. --Brad (talk) 06:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, it probably is. Alright, if this could be place on hold for a couple days, I'll work in A Short History of World War II, which I bought today, in place of that. Apologies and thanks, —Ed(talk • contribs) 00:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I picked up a few sources at the library today and will also work on the Akagi section. Maralia (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank Maralia, because my book won't help at all and I don't have time to read through any other books due to college. :| —Ed(talk • contribs) 20:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting there—have rewritten most of the Akagi section using three new sources:
Hoyt, Edwin P. (2001). Japan's War: The Great Pacific Conflict. New York: Cooper's Square Press. ISBN0815411189.
Ireland, Bernard (1998). Jane's Naval History of World War II. London: HarperCollins. ISBN0004721438.
Marston, Daniel, ed. (2005). The Pacific War Companion. Oxford: Osprey Publishing Ltd. ISBN1841768820.
If anyone sees a problem with these sources, please let me know. (Note that the Marston work is a collection of essays by named military historians; the cited essay is by a Fellow of the National Institute for Defense Studies, Tokyo.) Only the last paragraph of the section remains to be rewritten; I need to get some sleep, so I'll finish it tomorrow. Maralia (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great sources. Osprey have a reputation for publishing high quality resources. Jane's has its own reputation. I don't know Hoyt, and his back-catalogue doesn't give an impression that he's an academic. But he's certainly sufficient for an encyclopedia, and seems unproblematic. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoyt is an extremely prolific author. I was faced with using one of his books for Constitution but once I saw how many other books he's authored I placed him into the further reading section. However, none of his facts were incorrect at least as far as Constitution was concerned. His book would be fine for this article. --Brad (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Maralia; it is really appreciated. —Ed(talk • contribs) 07:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got distracted by trying to find some info on Hoyt's background/qualifications. Holy crap the man churns out some books (an average of nearly 4 per year for 50 years)! I've fleshed out the stub we had on him at Edwin Palmer Hoyt. His work seems largely well-received; Gale goes so far as to say he is "best known as a military historian. In this field, Hoyt has established a fine reputation". Hoyt's father (who seems to have had some influence on Hoyt's early appointments with the Office of War Information and at The Denver Post) seems notable in his own right, and may get his own article as well—but first, I will get back to finishing the Akagi section. Maralia (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have eliminated citations of the Tucker book, and rewritten the final section. No tertiary sources remaining, to my knowledge. I used an additional essay from the Marston book, this one by Robert W. Love who is a professor of military/naval history at the US Naval Academy and the author of a two-volume set on the History of the United States Navy. Maralia (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That is a help. Thanks again, Maralia. Quick question: is the full reference to DANFS needed in the "References" section? I've never done that before...just assumed that {{Cite DANFS}} was enough. Cheers, —Ed(talk • contribs) 20:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think {{Cite web}}, rather than {{Cite DANFS}}, was being used in the article at the time Fifelfoo added a brief DANFS line to the full reference list. At the same time Brad was converting Cite web instances to Cite DANFS (which links to the explanatory DANFS article), I was adding a full reference to DANFS. Either solution would have probably been sufficient. Personally, though, I think it's helpful to clarify that we are citing an online version of a print publication. Maralia (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Cpuldn't find anything I had a problem with, so full support. Skinny87 (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image issues still outstanding. Please respond here. NW(Talk) 16:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Cla68 (talk·contribs) to comment there; I have no idea what I can say at that discussion, as I have little copyright knowledge. On the other hand, I am extremely reluctant to remove those images because of the value they add to the article. —Ed(talk • contribs) 21:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Cla68 has provided a publishing date of 1949; I believe the image problem is resolved, but an image reviewer should double-check this. —Ed(talk • contribs) 02:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Status on Maralia's copyedit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed; my copyedit was finished on 30 September—my work since then has focused on re-sourcing and rewriting the final section, which is also complete. Maralia (talk) 05:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems very well done to me and I believe that it meets the FA criteria. I couldn't find any issues with it. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The in depth discussion of the eight-eight policy seems unnecessary on this article, or am I missing something? Nezzadar (speak) 18:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the only reason these ships were ever conceived was the Eight-Eight plan; otherwise, economic issues would have forced the cancellation of any ships beyond the Nagatos, if not before. Perhaps it does provide a bit too much back story (chiefly the first paragraph of that section), but a little too much is much better than too little I think... :-) Any further comments/thoughts on this issue would be welcomed and appreciated. —Ed(talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation I recently promoted the page on the Akagi to GA status, and invite those interested in this page to go work on that one. It could easily make FA with a bit of work. Nezzadar (speak) 18:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Per the conversation here, it appears there is some disagreement on the status of several of these images. I'm holding this open for a few days longer to see if Oda Mari's conversations with the museum can resolve the issue. Karanacs (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Four days later, same; folks, let's get this resolved! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Oda Mari is unable to contact the museum director within the next few days, I believe that I presented enough evidence to show that the photos are legit public domain, since I own the picture book published by the museum which included sufficient detail on the background and history of the images. Cla68 (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my latest posts here. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the Commons page. Thank you for your patience. Oda Mari (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oda Mari has definitely been of a great help here with the efforts to get to the bottom of this image issue. In my opinion, I think we can safely treat the images as public domain for now. Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good news everyone! As I was not able to contact the curator I first talked with, I phoned the Agency for Cultural Affairs. The Japanese Government Agency said all the pre-war photographs are not copyrighted and are PD. Because the old copyright law which was used from 1899 to 1970 is applied to them. The copyright protection period of photographs was 13 years after their creation/publication under the old law. Sorry it's in Japanese, but it is written on the page 27. The woman I talked with also said it is perfectly OK to copy and use those old photographs from recently, even if it's yesterday, published books. Thank you again for your patience. ( I posted the same thing on the Commons page too) Oda Mari (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Any lingering issues with this article appear to be resolved. Excellent work. Cla68 (talk) 07:08, 20 October 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 is ridiculously excessive. They should be arranged in a better format, because they are essentially meaningless right now. There's more cases of excessive footnotes, such as in the Role section. Is there any reason why 11 references are needed for two sentences? Majorlytalk 13:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The sources are there to link to those matches in which he captained, as the usual summary source page for instance, doesn't have the option of adding a symbol to denote it. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But what of the 11 footnotes for two sentences? I think that's over the top. Can you not spread them out? Majorlytalk 13:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 11 are for the captaincy matches, the others are for his position, as Cricinfo's Statsguru summariser only works for Tests, for the rest, you have to add them up manually for all the matches. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: YellowMonkey, this is a great article and you've done a fantastic job on cricket articles, and popularity is not required for FAC, but do you realize that these individual player/team articles are seen by almost no one? Your great skill at writing the articles is unfortunately unnoticed and could be better used at articles read more often. [31][32][33][34][35]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.244.232 (talk • contribs)
And? If it meets WP:N (which the recent AfD suggests this article does) it's an acceptable article. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that articles on old cricketers hardly get any reads, neither do articles about Vietnamese history. I don't really want to write about the latest fad cricketer, because in 10 years, once they retire, their reads will plummet as well, whereas these guys will remain highly remembered. Still this isn't costing me any more labour, because I finished work ages ago. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all, but Fingleton was from teh pre-ISBN age, so can't be helped YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 09:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that ISBNs aren't required by the FA criteria nor do I think the MOS requires them (unless they've recently been added somewhere I haven't seen yet). Yes, ISBNs are nice, but they aren't required. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was a uniformity issue. RB88 (T) 15:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ISBNs aren't available for all books, though. Even now, they aren't "required" for books, but most books carry them, but even in the 1980s, some books did not receive them. Prior to that, many books did not. I always look at ISBNs as nice extras, but not needed, and you can't request something that may or may not be available. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I got that. I simply saw all the other ones had it and asked for the remaining one to have it too for conformity. I assumed it would be available as I didn't know about ISBN history. RB88 (T) 15:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the fun exciting facts you'll learn about with source stuff! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the specific subject is not discussed in depth in sources. Article is primarily original research. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is. Is there anything in there that is made up and not out of a book? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I doubt you would have read the books to know. Anyhow, we've already had this discussion. The article meets WP:N according to the recent AfD discussion. Aaroncrick (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The books discuss Lindsay Hassett, or the Australian cricket team, or the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, or perhaps cricket in England in 1948, but not the full combination. See WP:SYNTH. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are no conclusions "not explicitly stated by any of the sources" or any new concepts. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I just read it for the first time and found it to be interesting and very well put together. OK, its not eveyone's cup of tea, but where is the original research? - every pertinent fact is properly cited and the article meets the N criteria per the recent AfD. Reviewers should assess on its merits and not some personal view regarding Notability. Hassett was the vice-captain and named Wisden cricketer of the year in 1949, largelyentirely on tne back of his contribution in this series. –Moondyne 01:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also WCOTY is purely based on performance in the past year in England, therefore Hassett's work "with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948" YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support –
Remove space after "Hassett took 23 catches on the tour , the most by an Australia excluding wicket-keepers." Remove space before the comma and change to "Australian".
Early tour: "Australian then bowled out the hosts in the second innings for 89." One letter too many on the first word.
Third Test: Space after reference number 20.
Later matches: "Hassett enforced the follow on as Australia wen on to win by an innings and 374 runs." Little typo in there.
Role: "The wins over latter two were particularly convincing". Add "the" before "latter"?
"batting at No.7 and No. 10 respectively." Minor point, but make the number spacing consistent in regards to the periods.
The last paragraph of the lead and the last para here are exact duplicates. There should be at least some surface differences between the two.Giants2008 (17–14) 21:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could have fixed all but the last point yourself, saving a lot of time. Is it really a good idea to type out "There's a space and it needs removing", or is it better to just remove it? I think the latter. Majorlytalk 21:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always approach FAC from the perspective of a reader who wants to read an informative, well-written article. If I see aspects of an article that negatively impact my reading experience, such as typos and spacing errors, I report them because it's not the reviewer's job to fix every such glitch in an article, although they certainly can if they choose to. It sometimes amazes me how many typos etc. I see in candidates, and it concerns me because they can indicate prose that is not of a professional standard. This is an unusual case in that they were the bulk of my comments, but it doesn't take that long to fix them and doing so makes for a stronger article. Giants2008 (17–14) 03:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A frequent side effect of this level of detail in reviews is that nominators learn to proofread their nominations before submitting them. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Majorly, have a look at my review of the FAC Inner German border, above. Huge. But many of the points require content knowledge I didn't have, and in any case I wanted to ... um ... train a very good editor out of a few habits. Better that s/he fixed the glitches himself. Tony(talk) 11:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3
File:WO Hassett.jpg - Since this image is hosted on Commons, it needs to be in the PD in both the US and the host country. Please add a tag explaining why it is PD in the US.
Removed it. There appears to be some issues with these AWM images, per other concurrent FACs YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you check to see if this image meets the requirements for PD-1996? If not, we could probably use it as fair use on en.wiki. Awadewit (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think fair use is worth the trouble, it's just a portrait of him, and is purely decorative, more or less YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Scartol • Tok 23:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have plowed through more than twenty volumes about Balzac (criticism and biography) to produce this erstwhile article about an 1840 novelette by Honoré de Balzac. It has been kindly peer reviewed by Awadewit and Figureskatingfan, and also reviewed here by Moni3. Although the Legacy section is a bit thin, it is my firm belief that there exist no other sources (in English, at least) that could expand it.
Thanks in advance for reviews and feedback! Scartol • Tok 23:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - All images check out. Awadewit (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Note: I recently peer-reviewed this.) This is a well-researched and well-written article about a lesser-known Balzac work. Considering what else is available on the internet regarding this work in a quick search, Scartol has provided a very valuable service in assembling this information, particularly in such an engaging way. Thanks for your dedication to the Balzac project! Awadewit (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I recently commented on the article's talk page per Scartol's request. My questions and suggestions were met. Well done, as usual. --Moni3 (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article needs more work by way of clarification. I have added some detailed comments on the lead on the article's talk page. Will add more later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied and repaired many of the items on the article talk page (and responded to others). Thanks for the careful eye to detail! Scartol • Tok 14:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Moni3 (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A curious thing about music articles: I write others to work out the stuff that I wish to understand. With that, I'd think that I would not want to hear the song anymore. I was late to work this morning because I couldn't move off my sofa when this song played. It's just fascinating, and the more I know about it, the more I hear stuff I've never heard before.
So, for you, finally, the sweet sounds of love: a really short article from me about a very famous song. If you don't know it, go download it right now and do not delay any further. And a note to someone who may be able to assist. I would like to add two sound files to this article. I downloaded Audacity but it does not seem to function on my Mac. I asked at WP:SONGS, User:Filll, and User:Scartol, but everyone is apparently really busy. Bummer. If you know how to insert sound files, I would very much appreciate assistance with inserting two for this article. I do not think the article is complete without them. It'll make you feel all right now... Moni3 (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick Comment - sorry but the prose seems rushed. I don't like the Lead. A song is not released, but a recording of it is. Why do we have have "multiple" instead of a simple and gracious "many"? With regard to the (ugly)"divided into two parts", do we need this in the Lead? I suspect the division was made so it could fit on two sides of a vinyl recording. I don't know. How about something along these lines:
"Recorded in 1959, "What'd I Say" or "What I Say" is a song performed by rhythm and blues (R&B) musician Ray Charles. The song was originally improvised live one evening late in 1958 when Charles, his orchestra, and backup singers had played their entire set but still had time left; the response to the song from the audience, and those at future shows, was so enthusiastic that Charles told his producer that he was going to record it." Graham. Graham ColmTalk 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the song on albums is listed as What'd I Say Part I and Part II. It's still listed this way in iTunes and some versions on Limewire. Readers will come to the article looking for this connection. I think it should be included in the lead.
Your statement, A song is not released, but a recording of it is. has me blinking in confusion. How is a song not released?
A song is written; a record is released. Graham ColmTalk 22:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't a song also released, particularly now in the era of digital media? The term "record" is no longer used since vinyl is virtually obsolete. Could the same be said for a book? A book is written, but the binding and paper is released? Might this be a British/American thing? I'm not trying to be difficult; I simply have never heard of such a severe delineation for "song" and "release".
Moni, it might be a British/American thing; it might even be an age thing (for me! shock!) But we, at least us in the UK, don't say "song releaser", we say "song writer". This is no big deal by the way. I have only read the Lead. It was, just a quick comment. Graham. Graham ColmTalk 22:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem changing multiple to many, but in the same vein, they are synonymous and...oh, I'll just change it. Done. Some general tweaking to the lead. --Moni3 (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a few comments:
The single cover needs alt text to describe what it shows. This can be added using the parameter in {{Infobox Single}}.
I remember being told that Rock on the Net is an unreliable source. Instead, you could use this (from The San Diego Union-Tribune) for the No. 43 VH1 ranking, and this (from USA Today) for the No. 96 VH1 ranking. The latter link also mentions the song being the oldest in the 100 Greatest Dance Songs list, so you won't have to remove that.
Everything else looks good to me. Pyrrhus16 21:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation done.
alt text added.
Vh1 references hidden until I can find better sources. Did not know about rockonthenet. First music article. Thanks for the review. --Moni3 (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: Sole fair use image seems appropriate. NW(Talk) 22:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments Refs, links, dabs all fine. RB88 (T) 22:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a great song and the article meets the FAC criteria. I have a few quibbles:
Would this read better with a "the" added? Ray Charles was 27 years old in 1958, with ten years of experience recording primarily rhythm and blues (R&B) music for [the] Downbeat and Swingtime record labels, ...
A bit unclear here which song "the song" is referring to (at least for me when I read it the first time): A previous recording called "Money Honey" by Clyde McPhatter had been banned in Georgia and Ahmet Ertegun and Wexler released the song despite the ban, risking arrest.[13]
With whom did Mick Jagger perform the duet?
If the person is not notablke, there is no need to include them, Ruhrfisch><>°° 13:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The song is featured in the biopic Ray (film) in a lightly fictionalized version of the way it was really composed - I think that is worth a sentence or two.
I would mention in the lead that Charles always played this as the last song in his concerts
Eh, the, no the...either way. McPhatter's song is clarified, Ray mentioned, a couple facts added to the lead. I don't recognize the name of Jagger's co-singer, but if you think it's important enough to add, I'll add it. Thanks for the review. --Moni3 (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I struck my comments, am fine with article as it now is (and replied on the duet above). I agree that this would benefit from a sound clip or two, but am not able to help make the needed files. Ruhrfisch><>°° 13:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Offer to help I can make sound files. Leave a note on my talk page with what exactly you want and I'll make the clips over the next few days. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alt text done; thanks.Please alter the alt text for that wonderful lead image so that it conveys to the visually impaired reader the gist of the image. The alt text should mention the sunglasses, the smile, the downward-pointing face, the sharp contrast between the white shirt and the dark everything else, and anything else that jumps out at you. This info is obvious to the sighted reader but the visually impaired reader is currently given no clue about it. Please see WP:ALT#Essence and WP:ALT#Portraits for more guidance. Also, please don't put "Ray Charles" in the alt text, as per WP:ALT#Repetition and WP:ALT#Verifiability.Eubulides (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote my reply five times and waited four hours before posting it, just to see if my reaction was a fleeting thing that would be inconsequential or if I really meant this, but here it is: I don't know what about this irritates me, but it really does. I think it's the fact that not only is alt text a requirement, but your version of alt text is required. Maybe this is representative of how Wikipedia culture twists to avoid unpleasantness when someone expresses the need to change, which points to its weakness: one person on a mission can change one thing in millions of articles and as a group we are slow to study the impact of such actions. It's a nebulous sense of rebellion in my mind, but to reply to your comment: I changed the alt text, but not the way you wanted it. What is most striking is the use of shadow, light, and reflection in that image. It's quite artful. I don't see him smiling. I think he's singing, but it would be inaccurate to portray that in a visual image, because that can't be proven, can it? What can be proven is that it is Ray Charles, an iconic figure in U.S. culture and international music. So much that I am uncomfortable describing Ray Charles in alt text as a black man with short, kinky hair, and perpetually rough skin. In fact, I won't do that. What Ray Charles looks like does not need to be expressed to readers; it makes him less than he is. I should add "fucking" between Ray and Charles in the alt text. I'm going to stick with Danish modern alt text in this case. It expresses what it needs to express. If you think, personally, that it should be changed, I invite you to change it. --Moni3 (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The alt text you wrote is fine. We can agree to disagree about whether the phrase "Ray Charles" should be in it, but since the image says "Ray Charles" there's a good argument for including it. I suspect that part of your irritation comes from a disagreeement over whether Ray Charles is an iconic and self-identifying figure in the sense that Gandhi, Napoleon, and Jesus are iconic (see WP:ALT#Verifiability). But this disagreement isn't important here, so let's drop it. Eubulides (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Initial comments—
Are you sure that infobox image is the cover for the single? I ask because the album article What'd_I_Say_(album) uses the same image. I believe that it is indeed the album cover, because I don't singles were released in their own covers (as opposed to just a paper bag or whatever). Also, the Allmusic album review of What I'd Say seems to agree with me.
"What I Say" is used exactly once in the body of the article; does it need to be highlighted in the lead sentence of the article?
Throughout the article you use "it" and "the song" too many times (particularly in the Reception section). I suggest mixing it up more by referring to the song directly by its name as well.
You haven't discussed the album What I'd Say anywhere in the article; do you have any information about whether the song helped sell more copies of the album, whether reviews of the album called the song as the highlight etc? Was the single actually taken "from the album What'd I Say" as the infobox says? It seems to be released many months before the album, without the express purpose of promoting the album.
Found a reliable source you can use; if you feel it does not have anything new, add it as an external link.
Not liking the difficult-to-read black-text-on-grey boxes. How about these blue things here?
"along with Ray and the Raelets"—isn't a [sic] in order there?—indopug (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I 100% sure? No. None of the sources I used to my recollection used the image to illustrate the song, but that's not surprising. I cannot, however, find another single sleeve that represents the American release. It makes sense to me that the single was so popular that the album was spawned from it. The album contains 2 versions of the song, and it's logical that the same cover art was used to entice buyers who associated their desire to own the song to own the album. I remember that I was required during the GA review back in May to replace the image with a higher resolution one (at least 300 px) and I went to raycharles.com to get it. I have a vague recollection that the site had the image listed next to the single. Now the site has been rearranged and I cannot find the page I copied it from.
Let me see if there is anything to add about the album. At the most, I remember the sources I used simply intone that an album was hastily arranged. The music business was dominated by singles sales. Charles announced he was leaving Atlantic, and I recall that Wexler and Ertegun threw together his Atlantic singles, as you said, in an afterthought. His Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music was his first at ABC and a full concept album.
I think the black on grey is smokey. Why don't you like it?
The barely legitimate nature of rock and roll and R&B in the late 50s ensured that serious writing was done in very few sources. Atlantic was one of several small startup record companies who had shoestring budgets and an unsophisticated PR department (which usually consisted of the owner, who also acted as producer, among the many hats they wore). For this reason, the spelling of the Raelettes was presented in three formats that I've seen. Charles names the song "What I Say" in his autobiography, and it was printed both ways in the press at the time, though clearly printed as "What'd I Say" by Atlantic. --Moni3 (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Media update - Here are the media clips: File:CharlesKnow1.ogg and File:CharlesKnow2.ogg. They both need the following information: source, name of copyright owner, explanation of why the clip is necessary to the article. I am a little worried that it will be difficult to justify using two clips. Note that the standard music sample template says "No other samples from the same track are used in Wikipedia." The reasoning will have to be very good, I think, to overcome this usual rule. Awadewit (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I did my best. I can't hear them on the computer I'm using now, but I will listen to them when I get home to make sure I'm actually describing what I think I'm describing. I hope the rationales are strong enough because I am not sure how to make them stronger. Let me know if you have suggestions, and I appreciate your assistance in this very much. --Moni3 (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could the argument be made that these files are from two tracks / songs (since the song was split into parts 1 and II for the single release)? This is technically true, even if we all know it is one song. Just a thought, Ruhrfisch><>°° 20:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the song is separated into three distinct sections: the opening with the disconnected verses, Charles and the orchestra going back and forth, ending with the false finale, then the call and response between Charles and the Raelettes. Each has its own distinct sound, but the opening riffs and the call and responses in the third part are what is so memorable, and what comprises the bulk of the writing about the song. Technically, the samples are taken from What'd I Say Part I and What'd I Say Part II (I think--I haven't listened to them yet), but I did what I could to justify their inclusion as a single composition.--Moni3 (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are stunningly good rationales! I think we can justify both clips. Awadewit (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else, my tenure on Wikipedia was well-spent learning how to write comprehensive fair use rationales. --Moni3 (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose what'd I say??? sorry, Support. Nice work. Reduced to nitty nitpicks :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The website is a review and interview website - non-user run, credited author information, and countless other things on the site seem to show that it is a well-class website that falls under the criteria for WP:RS. I don't see any true reason it's not reliable, unless you can find one. The Flash{talk} 01:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced. See the About Us page: http://firefox.org/news/pages/About-Us.html. "Firefox News is a blog and news site with news, reviews and articles by writers who can legitimately be considered "part of fandom."" The writers are bloggers and fans, and not part of any peer-reviewed editorial staff. Have a look at the criteria here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. If they cannot be fulfilled, then the source has to be removed. RB88 (T) 02:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed reference. Now that that's considered unreliable, [40] and [41] also support the "Gargoyles" is official. The Flash{talk} 02:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the italics on all the publishers as they are web-only and not print media.
Moved them to "publisher" attributes to remove the italics. --anoddname 01:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 1 needs the publisher's "Magazine" removed to stop any confusion with print media.
It's the name of the website - I don't see how it's can cause confusion, it's an e-zine... The Flash{talk} 01:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, someone might glance at it and assume otherwise. Or put it in italics thinking it's print media also. I'll remove it myself. RB88 (T) 02:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 6's publisher needs to be simply "Mania".
There's one link that needs disambiguation. Check the toolbox.
Yeah, that's the link in the "see also" at the top - it's actually supposed to be a disambig., lol ;) The Flash{talk} 01:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Ref and article dates look fine. I'll review this in more detail as it looks good (and it's short :P), but I share RB88's concern about Firefox News: they basically mooch off Mozilla's name and don't assert even basic credentials or editing standards. --anoddname 00:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I left a comment above about my reasons to support Firefox News. The Flash{talk} 01:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Full support Aside from the FN thing (maybe I'll check the site again later to comfort myself :P), the article is short but perfect. I've not watched the episode but I can't think of much else to add. The statements match the sources, and remaining style problems (if any) are minor or debatable. The fair-use rationale is...meh, but don't worry; I'll strengthen that later. If you can somehow remove FN and add another reliable critical review in its place, I'd fully support right away. Without FN, however, you'd only have the Nielsen ratings and one critic to go by, so I'd understand if you'd rather not. Well done. --anoddname 02:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If enough reviews disagree with my reasoning for FN, I'll remove it - I'm sure I can piece together some reviews for the DVDs that mention the episode, lol. The Flash{talk} 02:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale strengthened. --anoddname 12:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely convinced of DVD Talk's reliability (the correct search with quotes gives one mention in IndieWire, and the rest are from DVD Talk itself or irrelevant). Still, it's better than FN, and (though I still don't like the needless dab hatnote) the other reviews are enough for a full support from me. --anoddname 12:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What seems unreliable about DVD Talk? It's a non-user/fan run DVD review/retail site that has been used on countless articles for WP:TV. Anyways, thanks for the full support. Also, what dab hatnote are you referring to? The Flash{talk} 18:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other uses don't make it reliable. I personally avoid DVD Talk for one other reason: there's one review of an unrelated series I've been writing an article about that practically lifts lines from earlier Mania reviews, and thus puts their peer-review in question.
Understood - I still think it falls under the reliable sources criteria - plus, it looks like that's just a few words taken from it, it might be a coincidence, but not my place to call. Ah, I see how they look similar now, lol :P
Oh, I see. Well, in your summary you said no one would be looking for "interactions" when they typed in "Interactions (The Spectacular Spider-Man)," but when typing in "interactions" in the search bar, the page does come up and it is possible for somebody to accidentally go to the episode page in stead. Not to mention there's nothing against dabs in the policy. The Flash{talk} 20:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright review: No issues. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Pleas clear up Dr. Connor's relation to Peter, Gwen and Eddie; why is he demonstrating the source to them?
I think it's quite significant that Buzz Lightyear of Star Command, Justice League, and Darkwing Duck were all animated series.
It already says they're animated series. The Flash{talk} 21:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion is that the production section is simply to short to be divided in subsections, and I would advice you to merge them into one big "Production" section (example: "Volcano" also has one big production section instead of subsections). The main reason I point this out to you is because of their relatively short length and the fact that the image of Freeman pierces through the "Design and voice work" subsection. Of course, the choice is up to you.
"...but "feel[s] obligated to point out that the uniform excellence of the lot made this a challenging task."[11]", the quote should be in present tense, as the rest of the article is.
Again my opinion, but I would also advice you to change the date formatting from ISO to MM-DD-YY.
I personally prefer ISO to MM-DD-YY. The Flash{talk} 21:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you fix my comments I will support. Good luck with editing, and feel free to review my FAC "The Revenge".--Music26/11 18:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My issues have been resolved and I think this article looks good enough to be a FA.--Music26/11 14:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I've left a few comments on the FAC for "The Revenge" you should check out, BTW. The Flash{talk} 16:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone have further concerns? Other than DVD Talk and the dab—both minor even to me—I see none. (My support stands.) --anoddname 13:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro, do you have any thoughts on the article, its sources, etc.? Featuring an article takes consensus, not simple votes—if Raul654 or someone else decided they should review or un-feature this article and wonder why you supported it, what would you tell them? --anoddname 22:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well i would say that the artical look stable, it's refrences ar cited, it looks lik it has a good amount of info that is concentrated on the episode, though i would think you could make the pruducction or recrption longer, as when i GAR your other spider man episode it had a bigger producction thgen this one, i see there is no edit wars, the lead is alright, and this might be an important comment, when Music2611 nominated a Family Guy episode it had a very extensive and complete inmformation on the episode so i would say that is what is missing from tthis episode.--Pedro J.the rookie 00:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(I indented your comment because it replied to mine.) Thanks. I don't see how more production or reception info would be needed here. It covers the staff and reviews that applied to this episode quite well—how their Electro was developed, what outsiders actually thought of the episode and the villain—and anything else related to the general show or other episodes already has their own articles. Some articles have full cast lists or things like that, but I think those add too much weight to minor staff members. The plot section is short (as it should be for a half-hour episode) but covers the setup and major points of the story well. Besides, I couldn't find any more reliable sources for this, and I'm sure Flash has tried during the months spent on the article, so nothing else really can be added. --anoddname 01:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, like anoddname said, there's nothing left to add. The episode you reviewed, Pedro, had a lot more production because it was the pilot and more development info is generally available for that. Plus, the plot summary is - per WP:TV and WP:MOS ground rules - supposed to be as short as you can make it. Which, indeed, it is. But, yes, thanks for the support. The Flash{talk} 02:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite bored so I'll just join this, kinda redundant, discussion :P. Sourece for season premieres and finales and especially pilots are much easier to find than for regular episode articles. Sometimes DVD extras are a big help, but editors don't always have access to those. I find it surprising how much info Flash was able to find for this article, hence my support. Cheerio.--Music26/11 12:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): RB88 (T) 17:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Their magnum opus, my magnum opus. Greatest album of all time. Discuss. Not about whether it is (it is!), but about whether it fulfils the FA criteria. It should after a summery labour of love from yours truly and a detailed PR, including a thorough going over by the one and only Brianboulton. So, you should know that it's more than ready. Nitpicks welcome. Cheers. RB88 (T) 17:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No dabs to fix, all links working. I'll wait to hear what it's made of my ALT. ;) RB88 (T) 17:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<talk page resolved discussion moved to talk page>
Comment RB88 I can see you put a lot of work into this, but I also have to ask you for your reasoning for this caliber of jump. It seems to me that the ranks of GA and A exist for a reason, and putting this up for FA now is skipping two levels of review. This can only hurt the article. If no consensus is reached on promoting this, concider nominating it for GA, then getting it to level A. Something in this article just strikes me wrong, and it's not the subject matter. I've never heard of the band and have no opinion on it, nor is it you, I can't remember crossing paths with you before. Thoughts on the FA jump? Nezzadar (speak) 18:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GA and even PR are not required for FA nomination. The article meets the criteria, yes or no? Your comments are very vague. I've now done 4 FA articles of the same kind, so my advice is either oppose and make clear which bit of the FA criteria it fails or withdraw the comments. Not sure what/how I can improve the article based on these sort of comments. RB88 (T) 18:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. Articles here are reviewed against the Featured article criteria; the number of hoops they have jumped through is irrelevant. I will post my own review comments shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I second Brian and RB88 - there is also some delay at WP:GAN currently, so there is nothing wrong with carrying through a nomination directly to here if the momentum is right and other folks have reviewed it and felt it worth it. My very initial read-through suggests this should pass this time round and that I'll be reduced to nit-picking, which I will do soon :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lyric writing process slowed Remain in Light's creation, but was finalised after Byrne drew inspiration from academic literature on Africa. - did it delay its creation or its progress? Also "finalised" reminds me of the conclusion of a contract rather than the completion of an album. I have been trying to think of a grander verb "concluded", "accomplished" or somesuch.
The band members realised that it was solely up to Byrne to bear.. - tense query. Should it be "had been solely up to Byrne (i.e. until that point)?
additional musicians, including extra percussionists - particularly extra percussionists?
Doubts began to surface about whether the album would be finalised. - I think "completed" sounds better here.
Otherwise all good - Support. Well done. Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sorted out all your nitpicks. Also simplified a couple of your tense edits. Hope you don't mind. RB88 (T) 14:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Right, so as long as the nit picking gets done, it gets done. I would like to see FA articles go through plenty of nit-picking, but I don't have the time to do it, especially on something outside of my area of expertise. I will support this, albiet weakly. If I figure out what is bothering me so much about the article, I'll be sure to come back and bring it up. Nezzadar (speak) 01:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I took a quick look at the article per Rafablu's request. Overall it looks great, although it's not like I expected anything less from Rafablu. I'll do a more detailed review within the next week or so. Timmeh 01:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I did some pretty thorough nit-picking at peer review. There is always more that can be done, but I'll leave that mainly to others. Just a few niggles that arose in my last read-through:-
Origin section: "...after the latter suggested that Byrne was in total control" doesn't sufficiently convey that Byrne's control was a problem issue. Perhaps "...after the latter suggested that Byrne's level of control was excessive."
Studio session: Try to avoid the "After ... after" repetition in the first sentence of this section's second paragraph. Also, in the following sentence the phrase "since the age of 17" does not need commas round it.
Accolades: I got a bit tied up with "...notably at number two behind The Clash's London Calling by Robert Christgau,[52] and at number six by NME." Something like "notably at number two (behind The Clash's London Calling) by The Village Voice,[52] and at number six by NME."
Accolades: I'm not sure about "during" in "...at number 88 during its 100 Greatest Albums countdown,..."
Otherwise the article maintains and extends the high standards which RB88 is setting for musical articles. Excellent stuff. Brianboulton (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Sorted out the remaining nitpicks. Kept the last one though, I'm sure it's used as an expression during TV countdowns. Plus it gives some variation from the rest of the section. RB88 (T) 14:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support and quibbles No major problems, but Additional musicians were frequently used. The lyric writing process slowed Remain in Light's creation... read oddly. The first sentence seems almost an afterthought, with no apparent rationale, and I agree with Casliber on the lack of clarity of the second Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Fixed one of your nitpicks and the other in conjunction with Casliber's comment. RB88 (T) 14:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but that first link is from the site itself so it's not very helpful (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 18:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's got an editorial list the bottom if you scroll down, including Steve Lamacq, Simon Frith, and people from other publications. The rest is just padding to grab the attention of snappy/snarky music lovers, basically me. RB88 (T) 18:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plus plus, the author, Julian Marszalek works for Xfm aussi. [43]RB88 (T) 23:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments "... Byrne's and Eno's attempt to claim sole credits ..."
If the above possessive is referring to each person's separate attempt to claim sole credits, "attempt" should be plural. If it's referring to their joint attempt, it should read "Byrne and Eno's attempt ...".
May I ask why three sources are used for the personnel? Do the album liner notes not include some of the personnel listed?
The Design credits are given as acronyms. I had to go, for the band and MIT staff, based on Bowman and, for the M&Co. staff, based on Kalman's autobiography. RB88 (T) 18:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any particular reason "U.S." is used as an abbreviation instead of "US". I believe abbreviations without periods are preferred (and more common in British English).
Changed it. I'm sure both tend to be used but the Beeb always uses US I think. RB88 (T) 18:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:RILback.jpg - Both of the CD covers list as part of the rationale that they are used as the "primary means of identification" for the album. Since only one can be primary, I would suggest rewording the rationale for the back cover to explain why the image of the artwork is necessary. Using some of the material from the article itself which discusses the back cover might be helpful.
File:Greatcurve.ogg - Instead of saying that the clip is "38 seconds from a much longer recording", it would be best to state the length of the recording so that it can be established that "The sample is short in relation to the duration of the recorded track".
These should be relatively easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BOTH DONE. RB88 (T) 18:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All media issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per responses to my concerns above. Timmeh 21:28, 16 October 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 article on the only breed of horse from Iceland for featured article because I have been working on it throughout this year and think that it is finally ready for FAC. This article has gone through peer reviews by multiple users, which I think have prepared it well. Special thanks go to Montanabw for her suggestions, copyediting and general help throughout the process. This is my first attempt at alt text for images, so please go easy on me there! Dana boomer (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review (Support on criterion 3)
File:Tölt.jpg - Who is Arno Grimm and how does User:Regs have the ability to release something of his into the public domain. Please clarify.
I'm not sure on this. What would you think of replacing the image with this?
That would be fine, but its description needs to be cleaned up. NW(Talk) 02:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the description and switched out the photos, as well as changing the alt text. Dana boomer (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does this make it allright to use the file? Dana boomer (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that; I forgot to comment here. Yes, it would be fine to use those images. NW(Talk) 16:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! I've added the image back in. Dana boomer (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Winterhaltung.jpg - I feel like this image is a low-resolution version of one of our or Commons' FPs. However, I could just be crazy. Does anyone else recognize it?
I have been through most of the Commons' FPs while searching for equine pictures for the horse portal, and have not come across another version of this. However, if there is one out there, I would have no problem replacing it.
Nah, I probably don't know what I'm talking about. The image is fine. NW(Talk) 02:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replies interspersed above. Dana boomer (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alt text done; thanks.Please add alt text to the lead image, by using the |image_alt= parameter I just added to Template:Infobox horse. The other images have alt text that looks good already. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and thanks for the quick work; it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there not a picture of the tolt or flying pace? Fainitesbarleyscribs 19:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the images I have been able to find have problems that prevent them from being in an FA. Improper licensing, taken from too far away, too much stuff in the background, etc. The main problem with photos is that they don't really illustrate the movement well, as it is more a certain footfall pattern than anything else. Dana boomer (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This; The ancestors of the Icelandic horse were probably taken to Iceland by the Vikings between 860 and 935 AD. They were followed by immigrants from Norse colonies in Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Western Isles of Scotland sounds slightly odd. As if horses followed them.
Is there a reason why the main horse is called tan rather than by one of those special horsy colours in the alt text?Fainitesbarleyscribs 20:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because we try to stay away from the "special horsy colors" in alt text because they don't really tell the visually-impaired reader anything. Words like "palomino", "chestnut", "bay", "roan" are going to be even more difficult for visually-impaired readers to understand than "light", "dark", etc. The horse in the main image isn't really either light or dark, so I went with "tan". If this assumption is incorrect, then I will have no problem changing the way that I have written the alt text. Dana boomer (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of those visually impaired readers who used not to be. It could say "Light chestnut (tan colour)" for example.Fainitesbarleyscribs 20:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added in your suggested wording to the lead image. Dana boomer (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about these - thetolt and the pace. Do these have copyright problems?Fainitesbarleyscribs 20:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Ah - I see the tolt one has already been bowled out above. It does say that Regs is the author though. Presumably Regs is Grims wiki name.Fainitesbarleyscribs 20:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)The first is the tolt image that we originally had as the lead image in the article - it has copyright problems and we had to replace it. The second, although it is a pace, is not an Icelandic horse performing a pace (it's probably a Standardbred although I can't say this for sure) and the pace the the Icelandic performs is slightly different from a Standardbred pace, although it's the same basic footfall. Dana boomer (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, but I'm not sure if it completely resolves the issue. I've asked NuclearWarfare above if the deletion discussion changes things. Dana boomer (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the note from NuclearWarfare above, I've re-added the tolt image as the lead image, where it was before. Dana boomer (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I read this at peer review. I think it is buffed up to the point there are no deal-breakers for mine left. Yes, it'd be nice to get a gif of the gait but ou can only do what you can do, short of travelling to iceland with a videocamera. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 07:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Note that although I'm a member of Wikiproject Equine, I've had very little to do with this article ... I corrected some ndashes on it once.) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support even though I did massive work on an earlier version of this article and thus am technically COI-ed out. I nonetheless wholeheartedly support Dana's work and improvements to the article. Montanabw(talk) 23:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support having now had the time to read this thoroughly. A very readable article.Fainitesbarleyscribs 21:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a link that went dead just today. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gah, I hate link rot. I removed the link, as the information is covered by the next reference and not that controversial anyways. Dana boomer (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): NW(Talk) 02:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this article for FAC about two months ago, but Materialscientist noted that the research into the Russian sources wasn't really adequate. Per his advice, I withdrew the FAC and added to the article all I could from the reliable Russian sources Materialscientist found. I believe the article to be comprehensive, well-sourced, and hopefully, well-written. NW(Talk) 02:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seems fine, but something's nagging at me. On prose only.
At the age of three, in 1674 or 1675, Peter had received a primer from Tsar Alexis to help him learn the alphabet;[6] two years later, Tsar Feodor suggested to Peter's mother that he begins his studies. - begin his studies
Funny, I thought I had it like that. Perhaps it was accidentally changed during the copy editing step. Fixed. NW(Talk) 00:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zotov wore a highly unusual costume–his outfit was adorned with playing cards; he wore a tin hat; and he sat upon a barrel. - cite?
It is the same one as the source for the sentence after it; Massie 120. I had made that more explicit by adding a citation to the end of that sentence. NW(Talk) 00:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I replaced what I had as a weak support with a support. ceranthor 23:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to do this, but I'm removing my support. Karen brought up in better description what I thought was wrong with this article. See my comments below. Hope that you can improve the article just a bit more prose-wise! =( So sorry, ceranthor 19:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate being hypocritical, but I should still throw a weak support behind this. It's only fair. ceranthor 00:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was rather critical to the previous FAC nomination, but I do support this one. The article has greatly improved, and it provides a reasonably comprehensive and neutral description of the subject (despite usual problems due to the age of relevant primary documents and their various interpretations). Materialscientist (talk) 07:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well written and well sourced article. Ruslik_Zero 12:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - All images check out. Awadewit (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support on sourcing. I checked the sources before and they appeared to be fine. I saw no problems at the time. I have not had a chance to check within the past few days, but I do not think there were too many changes for there to be anything to have slipped by. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now by Karanacs.
Is there no information on his early life? When and where was he born? How was he educated? What qualities made him the best choice to be Peter's tutor?
All unknown, except for the last point, which I explained as best I could with the information I had in the first paragraph of "Appointment and instruction". NW(Talk) 21:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems disjointed and focused much more on Peter (Zotov is not even mentioned in the body of the article until the very last sentence of the third paragraph!). I ended the article feeling as if it should have been "Zotov's actions as seen by Peter the Great". Yes, I know that Peter is the focus of the sources, but it leaves gaps in the coverage.
A really good copyedit may help resolve some of this problem, if the existing text can be reworded to place the focus on Zotov, not on Peter.
The issue is that there simply is not enough information about Zotov available. To rewrite the article to focus more closely on him, I feel that there would have to be substantial information on Zotov's early life and his actions not related to Peter. Because those simply don't exist, and most people looking at this article would likely do so because of Zotov's relation to Peter, I feel that it is appropriate to focus the article this way. NW(Talk) 00:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the details?
What did Zotov do on his diplomatic mission to the Crimea? Was it successful? Was this an important assignment or a way of getting rid of him? Did the assignment have anything to do with his closeness to Peter (unclear how it relates to the last sentence of the previous paragraph)
Unknown. I spent quite a bit of time looking for this, but the only thing that turned up was an unreliable source and in Russian. There might conceivably something in Russian sources, but neither Materialscientist or I found it. NW(Talk) 21:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*What happened between 1683 and 1692 in Zotov's life?
Unknown. NW(Talk) 21:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why was Zotov named highest member of the crazy club? Was it because he was Peter's best friend, because he was religious, or some other reason?
Not reported in the sources. NW(Talk) 21:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was there any reaction to the group? Did his participation help/harm Zotov in any way?
What was Zotov's role in the torture? Did he supervise, devise punishments, actually inflict punishments? Any information on how he squared this with his deeply religious beliefs? What was the result?
See Materialscientist's comments below for the above few points. As for Zotov's personal involvement, this is the only thing that Massie mentions: "All of Peter's principal friends and lieutenants were involved in the carnage. Men such as Romodanovsky, Boris Golitsyn, Shein, Streshnev, Peter Prozorovsky, Michael Cherkassky, Vladimir Dolgoruky, Ivan Troekuriv, Fedor Shcherbatov and Peter's old tutor and Prince-Pope, Zotov, were chosen to participate, as a special mark of the Tsar's confidence. If the plot had spread and boyars were involved, Peter counted on these comrades to discover and faithfully report it. Peter himself, plagued by suspicion and fierce with anger, was often present and, sometimes wielding his big, ivory-handled cane, personally questioned those who seemed most guilty" (Massie 254). It could be that Zotov was just an supervisor, but he also could have inflicted the punishments. The source is simply much too vague to tell for sure, and it is the only text I have on the issue. NW(Talk) 00:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What types of books did they translate into Russian? Were these just exercises or were the books published in their Russian form?
I believe it was a book on building fortifications, and they likely were eventually published in Russian. I'll add a small note regarding that. NW(Talk) 21:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beginning in 1701, Zotov had several important titles. Did he actually have responsibilities to go along with them?
Likely, but the sources don't go into further detail. NW(Talk) 21:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea where Zotov was buried?
I am unsure, unfortunately. NW(Talk) 21:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what is meant by this the latter of whom bore in his hands a sword and shield and acted as a religious authority.
I think I had been trying to make some particular point with that statement, but as more and more sources were added, it became meaningless. I have removed the clause. NW(Talk) 00:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure there is any information about his early life. Ruslik_Zero 18:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A general answer to Karanacs. I agree that the prose of the article takes the style of its sources and focuses too much on Peter. This is up to NW. Regarding Zotov's life, I have had a dozen of similar questions (mostly not listed above) and spent about 24 hours of intensive search on the Russian web. In short, I found no data supported by reliable sources. Anyone who knows Russian history can give "reasonable", but speculative answers. For example.
That Zotov was named (by Peter) highest member of the crazy club was because of (i) his was one of the closest friends of Peter (this is reflected in the article) (ii) he was a crazy guy and a drunkard.
"Was there any reaction to the group? Did his participation help/harm Zotov in any way?" - it was a game of Peter in attempt to bring crazy fun into the life, which was previously pacified by religious rule (e.g., folk jesters were jailed right away, because of fear they divert and pervert people's minds). That Peter humiliated religion was a side-effect, not the meaning of the game (Peter fought religion much more through the government orders).
"What was Zotov's role in the torture?" - Standing with Peter and his actions. The torture divided the society: as I remember, streltsy had their reasons for revolt and a compassion of the general population, but the mere fact of an uprising against a tzar was a heresy and had to be punished publicly and with cruelty. This put Peter in an awkward position and a risk of losing popularity. Zotov was hardly more religious than anyone around, but he was more educated than others. Education of that time, of a person of his level was inevitably religion based as monks were the only available teachers.
There is no any information when he died, not to mention where. Materialscientist (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've crossed out a lot of the specifics because I believe you guys that you've looked extensively for sources. To me, though, this article does not read like a biography, and that makes it impossible for me to support. As I haven't read the sources, I can't begin to guess whether they provide any more context (no matter how small) that could better explain Zotov and his life to the reader. Right now, the article is too much "Points of Peter's life that were impacted by/contained Zotov". It looks like other reviewers don't necessarily see the same issue, however. Karanacs (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that I gathered a similar feeling to Karanacs, note the "something's nagging at me". NuclearW, if you don't mind, perhaps you could contact one of the history/history bio writers and get some more comments on the focus of this article. Consulting Tony would be a good idea, too. ceranthor 19:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think that for a 17th-century character like Zotov, who would be unknown but for his association with Tsar Peter in a time of widespread illiteracy, this is about as good as it can get. I think the overall focus is about right, and necessary to put Zotov's life into perspective. --MalleusFatuorum 21:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree with Malleus. No glaring issues that I can see; seems to adhere well to the criteria. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:14, 14 October 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 after a GAN, a long-running peer review, and about a month of me not really doing anything due to a lack of time, I believe the article meets the criteria. Tezkag72 (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is from the official Xbox website. It's only used to source the PEGI rating, not any extensive information on the game. Tezkag72 (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 73 (Dunham ...) lacks a publisher. Also, it links to an article by Craig Harris, not Dunham (since Harris is next in the refs, I suspect a copy paste error here...)
Current ref 79 is just a name (Dunham, Jeremy) missing the rest of the citation?
It was a formatting error. I apparently forgot to put a | between the title and the url. Don't know how that one got past me, but it's fixed now. Tezkag72 (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It needs work. I'll list a few of the points now, the rest later. Starting with the lead:
Doesn't follow typical lead structure. The developer and publisher are listed in a tiny second paragraph, rather than the first sentence. The first sentence is an enormous list of bluelinked platforms; get rid of these. Try, "Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy is a 2006 multi-platform action-adventure video game developed by Traveller's Tales and published by TT Games." Leave the platform list to the infobox.
Another problem with the lead is that it goes into unnecessary detail, and dwells on topics far too long. Take this, for example: "Lego Star Wars II's levels cover the events of Star Wars episodes A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi, which are collectively known as the original trilogy; whereas Lego Star Wars's levels covered the events of episodes The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith, which are collectively known as the prequel trilogy." We have bluelinks so people can find this stuff out for themselves. This could easily be cut down to "Lego Star Wars II's levels cover the events of the original Star Wars films A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi." Also, this lead is for Lego Star Wars II, right? So why this: "It retained the gameplay of Lego Star Wars II and allowed players to play through the levels of both Lego Star Wars and Lego Star Wars II"? Leave it for the bluelinks.
There are citations in the lead, which is unnecessary.
Any quoted material, even in the lead, has to be cited. Tezkag72 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Information is too scattered. Be brief, summarize things one topic at a time. For example, in the first paragraph, we see: "Its gameplay is similar to that of its predecessor, Lego Star Wars: The Video Game". However, in the second: "Improvements were made from Lego Star Wars's gameplay". Firstly, the wording is vague and unhelpful (per WP:LEAD, don't tease the reader), and secondly, the two sentences should be together. The characters sentence—"The game has over 50 playable characters taken from the films; the player can also create customized characters"—should probably go with them. Finally, "Lego Star Wars had been critically and commercially successful, causing Lego Star Wars II to be highly anticipated". This is repeated in the paragraph below it. Combine the two sentences.
Why is information from the lead copied word-for-word in Gameplay? Also, the section should be more concise. It digresses and goes into unnecessary detail. Keep it brief.
I'm not sure how to make it more consise. All the information seems necessary. Tezkag72 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Characters armed with a gun can use a grappling hook to reach higher areas when they stand inside a small red circle, and can attack enemies from a distance; while those armed with a lightsaber can double jump,[28] use the Force to move certain objects, and use their lightsaber to deflect enemies' projectiles.[31] R2-D2, C-3PO, and other characters are needed to open certain doors.[32] Small characters like the Ewok can crawl through small hatches to reach otherwise inaccessible areas. Bounty hunters like Boba Fett can throw thermal detonators to destroy otherwise indestructible objects.[33] Sith like Darth Vader can use the Force to manipulate black Lego objects.[28] Some characters have unique abilities such as Chewbacca's ability to rip enemies' arms from their sockets, Darth Vader choking enemies with the Force,[24] Lando Calrissian's kung-fu-like attack (a favorite of the developers),[34] and Princess Leia's ability to slap enemies.[15]"
"Three types of secret items can be collected in the game's levels: "gold bricks", "minikits", and "power bricks". Gold bricks are obtained after completing levels, achieving "True Jedi" (collecting a certain number of studs) in the story and free play mode of each level, and completing bonus levels. There are 99 gold bricks in the game; obtaining certain numbers of them unlocks rewards, such as access to a spigot that spews out Lego studs. Minikits are small canisters that are hidden in difficult-to-access places in levels. There are ten in each level.[19] Finding all ten minikits in a level unlocks a gold brick, and a vehicle that can be used in a bonus level[18] and viewed outside the cantina.[20] The final type of secret item is the power brick, a red Lego brick; one is hidden in each level. Collecting them makes various extras (such as invincibility and stud multipliers) available for purchase in the cantina.[19]"
Both of these could be shortened significantly. Also, I recommend removing the Characters subheading and merging the dispersing its information throughout Gameplay. This will help with other problems I didn't catch last time: redundant and scattered information. For example, you mention the Mos Eisley Cantina in the second paragraph, but then we get this info later on in the section: "In the Mos Eisley Cantina, the player can use studs to purchase characters, vehicles, gameplay hints, gold bricks, and extras. The player can also visit a small outdoor area, create customized characters,[21] or use cheat codes to unlock characters, extras,[22] or Easter eggs such as a Santa Claus character.[23]" You mention it again in Characters: "More can be purchased at the Mos Eisley Cantina. When a character is unlocked, their pieces can be used in character customization.[24][29]". Discuss one subject at a time; going back on yourself causes unnecessary confusion to the reader. This happens countless times in Gameplay and Characters. Here's another example: "The player takes the form of various characters from the films, armed with a gun or a lightsaber, and plays through the levels,[11] collecting Lego "studs", small disk-like objects that serve as the game's currency.[17] Completing levels requires the player to defeat enemies, build objects out of Lego bricks,[11] drive vehicles,[12][18] and switch between playable characters for their abilities". But you mention this again in Characters. Introduce it once; merge a shortened version of Characters here, like the part about special abilities. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The prose is rough in places. See this: "Lego Star Wars II places greater emphasis on character abilities than Lego Star Wars;[30] they have various abilities which makes it necessary to switch between them at times". This is extremely vague and full of redundant words. Try, "Character abilities have a larger role in Lego Star Wars II than in Lego Star Wars," and leave the last part to the next few sentences. Other examples include:
"Many locations from the films have been adapted into levels, including the planets Hoth, Bespin, Dagobah, Tatooine, the forest moon of Endor, and both Death Stars." - Try, "The game includes levels based on locations from the films, such as Hoth, Bespin, Dagobah, the forest moon of Endor, Tatooine and the Death Star".
"Once each level is completed in story mode; it can be played in free play, and the next level in the same episode can be played in story mode". - I don't understand it well enough to offer a suggestion. Just improve it.
Reworded to "Completing a level in story mode unlocks its free play mode as well as the story mode of the next level in the episode." Tezkag72 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In story mode, only a few characters can be played, but in free play, all unlocked characters can be played". - "Story mode features set playable characters, while free play grants access to all characters".
"Once all ten minikits are found, the player unlocks a vehicle that can be used in a bonus level unlocked after completing the episode, and viewed—but not driven—outside the Mos Eisley Cantina." - Extremely unclear, awkwardly worded; again, I can't understand it well enough to offer an improvement.
"Gold bricks are items that are obtained after completing a level, achieving "True Jedi" (collecting a high number of studs) in both the story and free play modes of each level, collecting all ten minikits in each level, and completing special missions for each episode". - See above.
Basically, get a few copyeditors—preferably those who are familiar with the game—to go over the whole thing.
I already requested help in this area from two people, but neither responded. Where should I take it? Perhaps WT:VG? Tezkag72 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could try that. You might also try the things I suggested to this guy. If you find someone, I'll give them a hand. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Gameplay image is a cutscene. Why not a gameplay shot? Who can tell what the game looks like in action without one?
There wasn't a specific issue related to gameplay that was commented on by many reviewers. A fair use image needs to show significance to pass NFCC. Tezkag72 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The significance is that it displays components of the game described in the prose, which would prove confusing to the average reader without a visual aid. It's currently suffering from this, and it doesn't even mention what perspective the game takes place from, or what dimension it's in. There also isn't much description of the HUD or interface. This stuff should be included anyway, so it's not like you're going out of your way to justify a gameplay image. Once that's in, put in an image that displays what you're describing, and you're set. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for now. To summarize: find copyeditors, rewrite the lead, shorten the lead and Gameplay, get a better screenshot, and make it clearer for the uninitiated. I'll be back today or tomorrow with a more thorough review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments above. I'll begin working on an expanded review of the article. From what I've seen so far, the bones are here, but they need to be polished. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright check: Box art and single screenshot are valid non-free use. I would encourage adding the copyright holder credit explicitly to the images as encouraged by WP:NFCC#10a. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sorry; there used to be a quote from him but I had to remove it because it was from About.com. That quote came before the current mention of "Gullet", and it was redundant to say "Assistant producer Jeff Gullet" twice. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way more meat could be added to development? Very little of the game's actual "development" is in here. Two sentences that hint at it—"Improvements were made from Lego Star Wars in terms of gameplay[38] and camera movement.[29]", "An effort was made to recreate the characters and events of the original trilogy in a "cute" way."—don't really elaborate.
What's there is all I was able to dig up. When I started working on the article, there was no development section. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perkinson's quotes, which are a large part of the section, do not have any obvious point. It just looks like one guy's opinion, not so much the game's design.
Removed one of his quotes and merged the other, along with the Gullet quote, into the first paragraph. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend that you take Jim Ward's quote out of quotation marks, paraphrase parts of it, and put it near the beginning of the section. Highlight in particular this line: "to make this feel like the true sequel our fans have been clamoring for".
You need to mention the game's release date(s).
Done. The section is now "Development and release", to cover both. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The compilation subheading is unnecessary; remove it, cut the subsection down to a few sentences, and merge into the end of Development.
I'll get back to you on Reception tomorrow. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The short paragraph at the start of the reception section looks out of place, as if you couldn't stick that information in anywhere else. Could it not be expanded to include the various platforms, thus making it look like a proper section? Also, it would make the long chain of citation numbers break up. -- EA SwyerTalkContributions 01:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for coming by. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks far better. I'll support this fine article. -- EA SwyerTalkContributions 00:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Quote by developer Jim Ward at the end of the Development section should be changed to a non-decorative blockquote formatting, as per WP:MOSQUOTE.
I swapped out the infobox image for a cleaner one that didn't have the rating/seal of quality splashed all over it. The other_information info should probably be adapted to the other nonfree image.
Sorry I've been so slow with these reviews. It looks like most of my concerns have not yet been addressed, though. I understand if you're busy, but you run the risk of the nomination being closed due to perceived inactivity. Anyway, the final review: Reception.
I agree with the above comment: the small paragraph needs to be dealt with. I recommend removing the Critical reception subheading, and letting all that sit together. While you're at it, the table needs work; it's very intrusive. Also, the scope of reviews should be improved. I would not support a computer game article lacking Computer Gaming World and PC Gamer reviews, and the same goes for a video game article without Electonic Gaming Monthly and Game Informer reviews. Both groups were/are (CGW and EGM are dead) the foremost reviewers in their fields, and must be represented.
I couldn't find a review from any of those reviewers. I looked for a Game Informer review when I started working on the article. Tezkag72 (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond that, the section looks pretty good. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Progress report: it's looking better. My two biggest concerns now are the prose and the bloated Gameplay section. As I said, if you can locate a copyeditor, I'll lend them a hand, which will get the job done quickly. As for the Gameplay section, I made suggestions earlier that are still relevant. Namely, redundant information, and overdetail in certain areas (specified above). JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put messages on the talk pages of the two users and of WikiProject Video games. I don't want to merge the Characters paragraph into Gameplay, though, because it will make the Gameplay section too big, and the article needs somewhere to put the "main article" thing. Tezkag72 (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. I guess those problems will have to fixed during the copyedit, on a case-by-case basis, rather than in one swing. Hopefully you get a response from those people. If no one offers to copyedit, I can do it solo; I'd much prefer a secondary role, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait a bit and see. By the way, I added the Game Informer review. Tezkag72 (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, no one's responded. Do whatever you think has to be done, or tell me some things to do so I can help. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. It's difficult to copyedit your own writing, particularly when you've done it recently; you can't see the errors. It's probably best if I do it. I'll have it done within the next few days. Also, it looks like David Fuchs did some copyediting, and he left a few notes that you should probably address. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 1a. The prose isn't there yet. I've done some more minor copyedits, and left more notes. The main issue left as I see it is the reception section, which just sounds damned clunky. There's lots of repetitious phrasing and structure, and (a pet peeve) publications are named rather than the critics who wrote for them. The awards section reads as a laundry list with no real schema for division of paragraphs or awards. For a (IMO) good example of how to write the sections, see Halo Wars#Reception. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some rewording on Reception. I'll do Awards later. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Actually, Awards is organized. It first mentions actual awards, then places in "best of" lists. Tezkag72 (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Awards is now merged into Reception. I did some rewording and shortening and it's one paragraph now. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's better, but there are still issues. The second paragraph, for example, lacks a topic sentence. Critics not named, e.g. "Theobald, Davis and IGN criticized the high number of glitches in the DS version". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added topic sentence. The reason critics are not named is that they are already mentioned. I didn't think of this idea; JimmyBlackwing did, and I trust him for it. Tezkag72 (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David Fuchs has not returned. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first copyediting pass is complete, but I'll continue to fix errors as I see them. However, I think that the Awards section needs to go; it's barely even prose. Perhaps you should axe the section, and create a paragraph at the end of Reception dedicated to its most outstanding awards. Namely: IGN's "Best PC Action Game of 2006", Spike TV Video Game Awards 2006's "Best Game Based on a Movie or TV Show", BAFTA Video Game Awards's "Best Gameplay", "Time magazine listed the game as the ninth of the top ten video games of 2006", "Reader's Digest named it as one of "5 Things We Don't Want You to Miss" in their September 2006 issue", its nominations for BAFTA's "Best Children's Game", "Best Character" (Han Solo), and "Best Game", and "On December 22, 2006, StarWars.com declared it the best Star Wars-related product of 2006". Work these together as a prose paragraph, and it'll be more interesting. Wikipedia doesn't exist to provide perfectly detailed information, anyway. See Wikipedia:Summary style. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did some more work on it. I noticed in here that the article does not include the Official Xbox Magazine, PSM or BusinessWeek reviews. Why omit these in favor of lesser sources, such as Allgame and GameSpy? Sure, they're reliable sources, but OXM, PSM and BusinessWeek are better sources. If you can access these, include them, along with the EGM review—when you get that. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Status update: looks like my issues have been resolved. But as one last request, it'd be great if you could also include the Official PlayStation Magazine review, to further flesh out the Reception section. I support the article, anyway. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PlayStation: The Official Magazine is there; is that what you meant? Anyway, thanks for the support. Tezkag72 (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. PlayStation: The Official Magazine (previously known as PSM) is published by Future, the publisher of Edge and Next Generation Magazine, among others. Official PlayStation Magazine U.S. (or OPM) was published by Ziff Davis, and was part of the EGM/OXM/Computer Gaming World family of magazines. I brought it up because I saw the review excerpted over at Metacritic, and since OPM's an important, high-quality source, I figured it should be in the article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards support (Note: I did not review the sources.) This article appears to be comprehensive, but the paragraphs and sentences do not flow as well as they could. I would suggest another run-through by a copyeditor. Here are some examples of what I mean:
Player characters' health appears as four hearts on the game's heads-up display; characters die when these hearts are depleted, and a small amount of Lego studs—small, disk-shaped objects that serve as the game's currency—bounce away. However, the character instantly reappears, and the studs can be recollected. - Hard to follow
Each film is split into six levels, and the game features bonus levels. - It is not clear why the films are being referred to at this point.
One power brick is hidden in each level, and collecting them makes extras available for purchase, such as invincibility and stud multipliers. - Unclear - this makes it sound like invincibility and multipliers are bricks.
This was the day before the DVD release of the uncut original trilogy. - This fact seems a bit random.
Let me know when the article has been copyedited again and I'll reread it. I look forward to fully supporting the article soon.Awadewit (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was copyedited by JimmyBlackwing as he saw fit to support it. Also, it seems like you already corrected these things. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article may have been copyedited already, but that doesn't mean all reviewers agree that the prose is of FA quality - I obviously still see some issues. I didn't correct the above problems - did someone else? Awadewit (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I copyedited all but the reception section (which is likely still due for one). A few small points:
I don't think this point makes sense in the article as is. Perhaps more information would help -> The game was praised as a result of reviewers' preference of the original trilogy over the prequel trilogy. Anthony Reiner of Game Informer said that "comparing [the prequel trilogy] to the films in the original trilogy is similar to comparing Jar Jar Binks to Han Solo".
I think we ought to make it more clear that the characters that are available in story mode correspond to characters that appear in that section of the movie. Because I am unfamiliar with the sources, I didn't want to add that in myself. Karanacs (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those links went dead recently, and at least one of them is available at archive.org, and they are sparsely used -- but please update them. I could have updated the one I checked at archive.org, but I noted that it has no accessdate (!), so that should also be supplied when it is updated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 17 October 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 as promised, here is a non-horse, non-bishop article. Urse is a somewhat obscure figure in Anglo-Norman history, not a big magnate, but definitely powerful and through his daughter ancestor of an important family in late Medieval England. He's mainly famous for invoking a rhyming curse from Ealdred, which is why he got his article started by me. After starting, he just kept growing past my planned "stub" status for him, and so now, here he is. Co-nom with Malleus and Deacon, as without their help, I'd not have finished Urse off. (Can Sandy, Karan, or Dabomb fix the nom statment to add those two in please?) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get the toolbox stuff out of the way for you first – there are no dablinks to fix, the external links are all working, all three images have alt text (others may care to comment on whether it could be improved), and all three images are public domain images at Commons without any obvious problems. I don't know historical sources well enough to be able to say "but you've included him, and he's known to be awful" or "why haven't you included her? She's the last word on the subject". Having said that, the reference list looks impressive, with no obvious "red flags"!
Minor quibbles only, it's a very interesting read and reflects a lot of hard work by you and your co-noms. I won't be offended if you don't think any of the following would improve matters.
Out of interest, does the photo of the infobox show the chateau as it appeared in Urse's lifetime, or at a later date?
Almost assuredly it's a later building. I'm basing this on the steep roof and the non-square tower, which scream Gothic rather than Romanesque to me. Whether the building in the picture predates the French Revolution or is a later reconstruction, I could not guess. With Worcester Cathedral being of later date than Urse (except for the crypt) and with Worcester Castle not being existant, I'm kinda scraping the bottom of the barrel for pictures. If the page from Hemming's was about Urse, I'd have put it in, but I do not believe it is. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that he "probably" came over after the conquest, but the lead doesn't have this qualification, which makes it slightly odd when the lead says a couple of sentences later that there is "no evidence" that he participated in the Battle of Hastings.
This traces to several things, mainly that there is a plaque in Devises France that states a whole long list of folks that supposedly fought at Hastings with Billy the Conqueror. However, this plaque is QUITE late in date and no contemporary record states that most of the people on the plaque were actually at Hastings. Many genealogists, however, continue to repeat the claim that Urse (and others) were at Hastings, which is not put forth by any modern historians. The trick is, figuring out when exactly Urse DID arrive in England. The upshot here is, I've removed the "probably" because well, yeah, obviously Urse arrived in England after the Conquest (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Norman Conquest of England" sometimes has a capital "c", sometimes not. I'm not sure which is the approved format, although the article Norman conquest of England uses the lower-case c in its title.
I was trained as a historian that it's Norman Conquest. I have no idea why our article is lower case, and I've never played with it. I've double checked that this article is consistently capitalized. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In the period until 1071, William consolidated his hold over England, despite a number of unsuccessful rebellions, particularly in the north and west of the country" reads slightly oddly, for two reasons. Firstly, I think it's because (to my mind at least) it's not necessarily inconsistent to consolidate one's hold and for there to be unsuccessful rebellions in the process. Also, "particularly in the north and west" could refer to the location of the rebellions or the place of his greatest consolidated hold. Perhaps something like "Between his coronation and 1071, William consolidated his hold over England, defeating a number of rebellions that arose particularly in the north and west of the country."?
Took your suggestion. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Sources" – you have two "often"s in the second sentence
Fixed. Took out the second one. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article sometimes has "Domesday Book" and sometimes "the Domesday Book"
Heh. Iridescent and I discussed this and it slipped my mind. I was taught "Domesday Book" not "the Domesday Book" .. .fixed all I found. Note that it's the Domesday Survey which created Domesday Book. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The Urse d'Abetot who was a witness to a charter of William, before the invasion of England, is probably the same Urse who became sheriff c. 1069" – as the fact that he became sheriff in 1069 hasn't been mentioned in the article yet, would it be easier to say "He is probably the same person as the "Urse d'Abetot" who was a witness to a charter of William before the invasion of England"?
took your suggestion Ealdgyth - Talk 19:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Linked Worcestershire. Worcester Cathedral is linked up in the sources section. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Urse also oversaw the construction of a new castle at the town of Worcester,[15] of which nothing now remains." is ambiguous for those who don't know that Worcester still exists...
"Service to William II" - should it really be "William II Rufus", or would it be better to say "William II (known as William Rufus)", or just use one or other designation?
Well, historian's use "William II" "William Rufus" or "Rufus" pretty much interchangably, probably just because you need some variety in how you refer to someone, and you can't vary it with a last name in this era. I think sticking with what's there is fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, as I say, a fine article. Perhaps writing about a non-horse non-bishop is an insufficient challenge for you; perhaps it's time that you wrote an FA on a hurricane... BencherliteTalk 15:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will check these over shortly (probably this afternoon after the farrier arrives) but some probably look quite helpful. And no to the hurricane idea, thank you. No roads, albums or video games either, sorry! I'm firmly wedded to either horses or medieval subjects. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, my minor quibbles have been resolved. BencherliteTalk 19:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, then so the perfect subject for you is medieval horses! (Any chance that you'd take on Veillantif? Or should we look for a famous medieval bishop's horse? :-)
I think even my skills at teasing out information (witness Urse here! His Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry is only like 200 words...) would not be able to do much with Veilantif, sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The map alt text needs a bit more context for readers who don't know English geography. Could you please say that the counties in question are in western England next to Wales?
The phrase "A page from a medieval hand-written manuscript" should be removed as per WP:ALT#Repetition, as it duplicates the caption. In its place, could you please transcribe a few words of the text, to give the visually impaired reader a feel for what they're missing?
On the transcription, I would not presume to do that. Medieval manuscript transcription is a subject I am not familiar with and I would be almost assuredly wrong in whatever I tried to transcribe. Any other suggestions on what to replace that with, bearing in mind I won't (and shouldn't) transcribe? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could transcribe a bit for you if you'd like. I'm no expert, but the text is that middle stage between Carolingian and Gothic, which is not yet too Gothic-y to be immediately illegible. (I've got a 14th century one in my sandbox that I still can't figure out!) Adam Bishop (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the duplicate text with something else that didn't involve transcription. Thanks for fixing the map; the alt text looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've already done my nitpicking-and-questioning prior to the nomination, here. – iridescent 19:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Eek, I've never made one of these before. The note next to Ealdred's curse lists two other "translations", a word which without further qualification implies "translations into modern English". Yet the other translations look pretty Middle English to me. I assume that Ealdred was speaking Old English, and the two versions in the note are "translations" by two different chroniclers into their native Middle English? If so, the note should specify that the version in the main text is a translation into modern English, and that the other versions are renderings in Middle of Ealdred's curse in Old. A. Parrot (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to check on this, but the original may have been Latin actually, with the "translations" into something the translators (modern historians) felt was more "authentic" that Ealdred would have said. I'll go digging in a few. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the original statement is from William of Malmesbury's Gesta Pontificum, which was a Latin chronicle/work. (Well, Bates doesn't say where he got it, but the other two give the same chronicle, so it's unlikely to have been in more than one chronicle.) So the original would have been Latin and the translators here are translating into either pseudo-Middle English or modern English. I'm more than happy to amend the note, but what would you suggest? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. How about "William of Malmesbury recorded the curse in Latin, but (insert less-archaizing source here) translates it this way. Other, more archaic translations include (Rendering 1) and (Rendering 2)."
I tried this for the note: "The original was in William of Malmesbury's Latin work Gesta pontificum, and another modern yet archaizing translation is "Hattest thu Urs? Have thu Godes kurs." Another historian renders the original Latin as "Hattest ðu Urs, haue ðu Godes kurs"." I rather like leaving the most modern translation up in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant; I was only suggesting a new version of the note, where "this way" refers to the version in the article text, and the "less-archaizing source" is just the name of the author who wrote that version. I think my version is more orderly and compact (you could add "in Gesta Pontificum" after William's name and change "archaic" to "archaizing", if that seems better), but I'll leave it to you. A. Parrot (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to reword it, feel free. I got lost somewhere in the explanations (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments Because I didn't forget, my bishop horsey loving chum. Dabs and links are fine.
Do the Alecto; Appleton; Williams 2003 refs have a publishing location to make them uniform with the rest?
It's a CD Rom, and doesn't have a location anywhere on it. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One Hollister ref needs expansion of the author's name for uniformity with the other ones.
I follow the convention of using the name as given on the ref for the author. The one where he's "C. W." is how he's listed on that conference report. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Mooers; Southern refs have an unconventional (01 [year]) citation. Does that mean January or what?
Fixed, not sure what the heck happened there. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support on 1b, 1c, 2c. I'm impressed by the scholarly endeavour of this, especially for an article which has a section specifically detailing that finding good quality/accurate sources is a historical challenge. It's very close to being 100% comprehensive in terms of notable and reliable references. Good job to all three editors. RB88 (T) 23:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support and a nitpick usual high standard, but Little is known of his family in Normandy, who were not prominent. in the lead is odd. I'd lose the redundant bit after the comma - if they were prominent they wouldn't be little-known Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in this time frame it's quite easy to be prominent but little known. In fact, Urse is an excellent example, he was a very prominent and powerful person, but the actual information known on him is pretty sparse. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright review: No issues. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I reviewed the article at GAN, and thought it was pretty close to FA standard then. One minor quibble, should under-tenant (a red link) be undertenant? Mm40 (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That redirects to Subinfeudation which is a really crappy article and not quite what an under-tenant is in English history. I'd rather leave the redlink and get around to writing a better article after the next time I go to the library. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The above article has had its share of problems in the past. It is under Arbcom probation, yet its principal issue is one of WP:NPOV. A bunch of single purpose Falun Gong editors caused it to be delisted as WP:GA. Recently, due to an influx of fresh editors, the article has been reverted to its GA version. Over the last 2 weeks, I have given it a significant rewrite, and I believe that it meets the necessary criteria, and would like it confirmed. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks.Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.Eubulides (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support FA For an article that used to be on probation, one would never guess it by looking at it now. The scope, details, and abundant citations make this a showcase article to direct someone after they poo-poo Wikipedia. Someone (or some group) has obviously been very busy trying to make Wikipedia shine. Greg L (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm guessing "FLG" stands for Falun Gong? Please define the abbreviation so dense readers such as me can easily discern what it stands for.Dabomb87 (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Ownby? Perhaps "and David Ownby, Professor of Chinese studies at ?London University" ... Tony(talk) 09:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Now clarified as Professor at Montreal University. His credentials now included in an inline reference.Ohconfucius (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now as I have multiple concerns on 1a. Some of these failings seem to be due to the fact that editors are so familiar with the topic that they have forgotten to explain things to the general reader who may know nothing about Falun Gong. Others are just a failure to summarise information in a well-organised way.
Background section: The "Fa" is not explained.Now explained as how Falun Gong refers to itselfOhconfucius (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FLG is not a commonly known acronym; we should write Falun Gong throughout.all instances now changed backOhconfucius (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"head office": not explained. Is it the Falun Gong head office? Where is it? Is that its official name?Refers to New York, where Li Hongzhi and Gail Rachlin are based. Now clarifiedOhconfucius (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incident section: "A foreign film crew witnessed a man sitting down on the pavement northeast of the Monument to the People's Heroes at the center of the square, poured gasoline on his clothes and set himself on fire. Moments later four more people set themselves alight.[1] Nearby police with fire-extinguishers ran to the first victim and put out the flames before the others set themselves alight." The first sentence is grammatically unsound (who poured? grammatically it is the film crew right now); the third sentence needlessly repeats the same formulation ("set themselves alight") that the second used.I've rewritten the paragraph - pls check. --JN466 00:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First we say, "A foreign film crew", then we refer to "the filming CNN crew". If this is the same film crew as the first, then the first mention should identify it as a CNN crew.Yes, they are one and the same. Now adjusted.Ohconfucius (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the table, the Outcome column for Liu Baorong should probably mention that he also failed to set himself on fire.Done
What about Liu Yunfang? Was he let go or sentenced as well?
The section "Reporting and Analysis" seems muddled and is often unclear.
"On the issue of plausibility" -- Plausibility of what? This needs to be spelled out for the reader.now removed during rewrite. I hope it is clear from the remaining text without this intro.Ohconfucius (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the Laogai Research Foundation founded by Chinese dissident Harry Wu suggested that a set-up was "hardly a far-fetched hypothesis", as the government had vowed to extinguish all problems connected with Falun Gong before the 80th anniversary of the Communist Party in July 2001." A set-up by whom? Falun Gong or the Chinese government?refers to set-up by the Communist Party. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Sinologist Barend ter Haar believes the event was not orchestrated in advance but that the video could have been fabricated, given the government's great anger at the Western media for publishing it as evidence of Falun Gong martyrdom." Again, orchestrated and fabricated by whom and to what purpose? The phrase "given the government's great anger" is a non-sequitur; I don't see how the Chinese government's being angry about Western media showing the film makes it more likely that the Chinese government fabricated the film.rewritten, please checkOhconfucius (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The format of quotes "A said X, B said Y, C said Z" does not flow well.rewritten, pls checkOhconfucius (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who or what is the "World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong"? Who runs it? The acronym WOIPFG should not be used without prior explanation.now clarified as a Falun Gong lobby groupOhconfucius (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ownby "said that although the message superficially seemed to be a "call to arms... [against]... evil beings who no longer have any human nature or righteous thoughts" (Li's words)" -- what are Ownby's words, and what are Li's words?Rewritten per John Carter. --JN466 00:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"claiming a number of inconsistencies in the state's version of events compared with the video broadcast" -- the article says the video was broadcast by the state television, so which state version is the state-broadcast video inconsistent with?The state's version of events comes from all media - print, TV, etc., not just the video. Now clarified.Ohconfucius (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More later. --JN466 13:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, I agree. I've been editing around the family of articles for a while, and I am aware of me possibly lacking in objectivity. I've tweaked some of the points you mentioned above, but will have more time for a closer look on Monday. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Call to arms" is Ownby's phrase, the other, longer, quote about "evil beings" is quoted by Ownby from Li's speech. John Carter (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my Oppose above. The article is not ready for FA status, but it is profiting from the attention of the FA process, and given more work it may be possible to bring it to FA status in the course of this nomination. --JN466 13:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I don't believe it to be of good enough quality for FA. It could do with a major polish not to mention could probably be made more comprehensive.Himalayan 17:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to deal with it if there are more specifics as to the manner in which it is lacking. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Accusations of bad faith edits in a FA nomination should basically disqualify the article as being in a state of flux. Shii(tock) 18:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did worry when I wrote the nomination above, and I'm sorry it created that impression for the above editor that it was a bad faith accusation on my part. That aside, I wanted to demonstrate that the challenge which I had in mind when I started with this article. As I said, the article was fraught with WP:NPOV issues successive from both a pro-FG and pro-Chinese government perspective which needed rectifying. I hope that getting this article to FA, through careful community scrutiny (particularly as to its neutrality), it will silence the criticisms of bias, and be stable once and for all. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the lead to FA nominations is irrelevant. The nomination itself needs to be judged. Tony(talk) 11:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 32 (Schechter..) says the book title is "Akashic Books" but that appears to be a publisher, what's the actual title of the book please?done '(|title=' was misentered twice in the template}. Now corrected.Ohconfucius (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 42 (Investigation...) who is WOIPFG?acronym for World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong - all instances now expandedOhconfucius (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't aware of that convention. Shall I revert all the other strike-throughs? Ohconfucius (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Up to you. Some folks are less concerned about it, but it probably wouldn't hurt.
I reverted all but the simplest ones; As you haven't removed some strikethroughs, I also assume that your list has been dealt with to your satisfaction. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New query ... what is "ibid Porter, pg 105 (Chang 1991: 89, 134; Rahn 2001b; Lindsey 2001: 2; ter Haar 2001: sec. 1; Li Cheng 1997: 168-169)" supposed to mean? It's current ref 28. We don't use "ibid" on Wikipedia because it is dependent on context, which can change easily.Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Porter's thesis is used once in the article, and I used it because I wanted to quote a bit more info than what the other tag gave. I have now consolidated them because they point to the same page, in fact. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – To add to Ealdgyth's sourcing comments, only printed references should have the publisher in italics (Ref 1 from CNN should be adjusted, and there may be others), and reference 20 shouldn't have all-caps in the title.Giants2008 (17–14) 01:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC) all instances of non-print media new changed to normal type. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, 1a. Important test of WP's NPOV; I'm unsure why there's a banner at the top now: I can identify no obvious features of POV. Tony(talk) 08:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and dealt with the concerns listed in the NPOV noticeboard, and believe most have now been dealt with. The NPOV tag has been removed accordingly. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who brought up the issue on the noticeboard, and that I would like to confirm that it is solved, so the removal of the tag is correct. My addition in the lead first needs to be in the body of the article, that was my mistake with it. Hope I'll find the time to do it. Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose temporarily until the NPOV/N thread reaches its logical ending; this is more of a stability oppose than a neutrality oppose. Sceptre(talk) 02:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - meets FA standards in my judgement. Dincher (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am involved in the subject of Falun Gong here, if not the content of this article itself, but, based on my own admittedly limited knowledge of the subject I don't myself see anything which would cause me to think it truly fails any FA criteria. John Carter (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a very good NPOV version of what was once a POV-laden agenda-pushing article, and should stand as a guiding example for NPOV on this encyclopedia. It meets all the featured article criteria, and all the users involved, especially User OhConfucius, has been working very diligently to make the article the way it is today. He takes into account the views of all editors who have taken an interest in the article, and have made all the changes accordingly, as we note above. Colipon+(Talk) 13:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lead could be clearer. I was aware that one of the most notable images of the incident was of Liu Siying who is not mentioned by name in the lead, and when she is introduced it is "the young girl burning" even though this is the first mention, so the indefinite article should be used. The Falun Gong are not explained in the lead - and the Background section is similarly unhelpful in explaining who this group are. The video evidence section is not balanced - it is presented in such a way that it is building up evidence that the event was staged - "said to be taken" is directed language, we get a series of unchallenged statements which give the view that the event was staged, supported by an an inset with seven statements; and this is followed by an inappropriately used quote from the Washington Post. The article presents the quote as evidence that the event was staged, yet the quote is used in the source as evidence that the newspaper men where arrested and DID NOT collaborate with the police - that the filming that was shown on TV was from standard CCTV footage that every modern city has. At this point I do not trust the article, and cannot give it my support. SilkTork *YES! 14:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping SilkTork to see if these concerns have been resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll read the article more closely later and give a fuller assessment, but I will say that at this stage, I've simply glanced at the lead and I still have concerns that Liu Chunling is not mentioned in the lead, even though we now have an image of her in an infobox at the top of the page. And while I'm pleased to see that there is a better introduction to the Falun Gong in the Background section, the lead still doesn't make it clear who they are. SilkTork *YES! 19:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review (Support on criterion 3)
Don't believe I have ever seen a fair use rationale like File:Selfimmowflag.jpg (There are no other primary sources for this event. All non-governmental images of this event have been suppressed...). Certainly a good FUR.
Comment: After a recent addition of a number of fair use images, I re-reviewed the article. As of this revision, I see no problem with the fair use images used, though the number is quite a lot. NW(Talk) 04:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a couple of WP:LINKVIOs. We should only be linking to newspaper articles on the newspapers' own sites. Unlicensed copies of newspaper articles on Falun Gong websites, academic websites, human rights orgs' websites etc. should not be linked to. Please check through the remaining links. A note like "(C) 2001 The Washington Post", or a website claiming "fair use", is not indication of a license to host the material. However, I believe web pages bearing an explicit statement saying "Reproduced by permission of [original publisher]" or similar may be linked to. JN466 14:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC) I've checked through all the refs now; there was just one other and I've taken it out. The rest look fine. --JN466 17:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. I think the article has improved a lot over the past few days. I'd invite the earlier oppose voters to re-review it, to see if the concerns they had at the time have been addressed. JN466 17:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to supportSupport
Freaky.
I did some copy editing, including a fact tag. It's jarring for someone to do that to my articles, and I apologize, but that needs a cite. I checked the Guardian reference used in other parts of the article, but it did not say what that sentence says it does. Done. It got separated from another piece of text.Ohconfucius (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Liu chunling frames.jpg really needs a complete description. I cannot tell what is happening in the series of images. I've expanded the descriptionOhconfucius (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is facts.org? I looked at the site but I could not tell who runs it, and its stance on Falun Gong. Is it neutral? Is it fact-checked? This is an anti-FLG site put up by the China Association For Cultic Studies. Is it neutral? Hell no, but it's the party line ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
interrupted and will return to finish the article and review--- --Moni3 (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry. To be clear: the image page needs a description of the image, not the caption in the article. I have now added a fuller description as well as a translation of the legend accompanying the image. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might need to help the reader in The victims section with explaining the points you're trying to make. The incident seems to be interpreted liberally by Falun Gong, the Chinese government, and international press. Although you've constructed this section with strong quotes and sources, it helps to anchor these with simple interpretations of the various arguments, particularly in the first two paragraphs. It might help to start the section with a sentence that reads, "Following the incident, the details of why the participants were involved were disputed between representatives of Falun Gong, the Chinese government, and the international press." and start the second paragraph with "Doubts about strident practitioners of Falun Gong revolved around the use of suicide as a form of protest, as the beliefs of Falun Gong forbid it." I would also add a sentence before "Francesco Sisci, ..." to introduce the idea that someone, somewhere, thought it a valid theory that the Chinese government forced, coerced, asked, or somehow persuaded five individuals to light themselves on fire. Added the first two. I recall reading a remark somewhere that the Wang Jindong in the video was wearing fire-proof clothes, but not the other victims. In absence of any accusation that all the victims were coerced or persuaded, I have enlarged the original Sisci quote. Does this work?Ohconfucius (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Watch your verb tense change in the third paragraph of this section as well. I'm not wild that writers and magazines are reported to have "said" when they wrote, reported, remarked, stated, but switching to "were saying" is grammatically incompatible and in an article where everyone seems to be saying the other side is lying, seems shifty and untrustworthy. Clarity and precision of language is very important here. I changed one instance of a magazine saying something, when in fact, it's the writer of the magazine article who put it forth. I suggest going through the article to reconcile these issues. I've now worked through all the quotes/beliefs etc. and have hopefully corrected them all.Ohconfucius (talk) 05:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you call someone who consciously makes a decision to sit down, pour gas on himself, and light himself on fire a victim? What is he a victim of? Yes and no. Of course, the government refers to these people as victims of Falun Gong. I saw nothing wrong with that description because even respectable journals often refer to people who commit suicide as 'suicide victims'; those like Chen Guo can be said to be a 'burns victim'. However, I have changed most instances of the word (except reference titles and direct quotes) because it's probably more neutral.Ohconfucius (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Aftermath section needs an introductory sentence to ease into the issues you cover. Something like "The incident continues to serve as a significant reason for disputing the methods of Falun Gong in China." Now added.Ohconfucius (talk) 05:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not readily and very strongly apparent soon enough in the lead about why this happened. At any point in an article that references self-immolation in the title, an article will have to address as soon as the date and place are mentioned. Even if it is a phrase or clause "...to protest the perceived unfair treatment from the Chinese government." or something. I agree. Now added, thanks.Ohconfucius (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to facts.org, you should state the first time you use this reference that it is an anti-Falun Gong state-sponsored website, and every time after that, references facts.org. As in, first instance: "State-sponsored anti-Falun Gong website facts.org reports..." and then "According to facts.org..." following that. Now added, thanks.Ohconfucius (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sentence "Liu Yunfang explained that he was unable to burn himself because he had not attained the required spiritual level." has been added to the Incident section. When I first came across this sentence a couple of days ago, I meant to insert it in the same way. Later on, however, I saw this Chinese government source saying, "Liu Yunfang and Liu Baorong were stopped before they could set fire on themselves." Assuming this to be the truth, I no longer felt it was appropriate to add the sentence then. For if Liu Yunfang made the statement at all, it must have been a post-facto rationalisation of why the police were able to stop him, rather than evidence of a lack of willingness or ability on his part to go through with what his companions were going through with (which is the impression currently created). --JN466 19:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to this, there doesn't seem to be incompatibility between those positions, although I admit to being confused about it when I first read the various apparently conflicting accounts. It does appear to be post-facto, but one could read that his lack of commitment to go through with it (that an enlightened one would have no fear or doubt), which was finally ended by the vigilant and decisive police at the scene. Do the new formulation and ref work? Ohconfucius (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very well done for finding that source; and it is certainly plausible that it might have been hesitation on his part which gave the police the time to stop him. Incidentally, in the case of Liu Baorong, china.org.cn said she explained that her watch malfunctioned.
You have done a great job addressing mine and everyone else's earlier concerns; I hope this nomination succeeds. --JN466 10:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue has come up elsewhere as to what caused the people to decided to use self-immolation, and one theory I have heard that is not addressed here is that it is a copycat action of Tibetan protestors using self-immolation. Could someone address this in the artilce? Nezzadar (speak) 17:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article has been C/E'd by a number of different editors since it's construction in my sandbox and has recently just passed a MiliHist A-class review. Due to the nature of my work my chances to reply to comments may be sporadic (at the latest 7 days!) I humbly ask for your patience please. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source problem: "Pilots Staff Sergeant Christopher Griffin and Lance Corporal Simon Cockton of 656 Squadron, Army Air Corps, were given the task of taking equipment and personnel to a malfunctioning "radio rebroadcast station" on top of Pleasant Peak." is sourced to here and [50] which does not support any of the given information.
Is it www.mod.uk or Ministry of Defence? Pick one and stick with it.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: http://www.british-towns.net/ After some investigation I concur that this does not meet the FAC reliability criteria. It does however state the actual truth: that there is definitely a cross on Pleasant Peak [51] (there's actually two crosses, one by the number, the other at the top). In light of this fact being true and it being supported by the Ministry of Defence ref, would it just be best to remove this controversial source all together?
Yes, if it is supported by another ref, just remove the non-reliable one. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has this been fixed? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I removed the suspect ref. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source problem: fixed
Fixed: the one instance of "www.mod.uk" has been changed to "Ministry of Defence". Ryan4314 (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that this very interesting, well written and well illustrated article meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needs independent copy-edit. SupportMuch better; well done, Ryan. Here are random issues at the top.
I may be wrong, but "killing all on-board" doesn't seem to need the hyphen.
"... [the] transmitter was turned off due to it causing interference with the army's land based Rapier anti-aircraft missile system." Ouch. See noun plus -ing; why not "because it caused"? And "land-based", please.
"Until that time"—you mean at the inquiry? If so, "until the inquiry".
"The conflict ended in June with the surrender of the Argentine forces, with battles being fought on land, sea and in the air, costing the lives of approximately 900 servicemen on both sides." Here's another awkward with plus noun plus -ing (they're not all, but this is). And worse, was it the Arg. surrender that involved the battles, or were the battles the cause of the surrender? Being, costing. So "... forces after land, sea and air battles that had cost the ..."? Use "some 900", perhaps.
"milkrunswere"—if the typo is in the original, you're allowed to correct it "silently". See Allowable typographical changes.
Start of next para, a comma splice. See [[this at MoS, where you'll find advice also on quotations within quotations. Tony(talk) 02:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS Most of the images are tiny. See Size. The "Memorial section could be tacked on to the end of the previous section, which would avoid the downwards drift of the image (which should be larger anyway—looks like the close-up of a mineralogical specimen: double size? Tony(talk) 02:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and do you think you could mention the deaths of the four soldiers before the loss of the helicopter in the infobox???
I've interpolated my rejoinders; otherwise it's really hard to keep track of what refers to what. Tony(talk) 11:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tony, thanks for reviewing the article. I'm not at my home computer at the moment, so I might not be able to make the grammatical changes you suggested until Monday. In my defence, a lot of the changes you've suggested were how I originally wrote the artice and have since been changed by other editors "helping". Ryan4314 (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Done. Out of curiosity, is this sentence any better: [the] transmitter was turned off due to it causing interference with their land based anti-aircraft missile system, Rapier.
"'Fraid not! "its causing" is fine grammatically, if you can cope with the old-fashionedness of it. Otherwise, the one I suggested. I'm interested to know whether you find the "it causing" clunky ... (I want to know whether my instincts are shared by writers more broadly when it comes to a head.) Tony(talk) 11:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is: writing these articles is a bit like a word exercise. I was brought up in school to avoid duplicating words, so an article is made a sentence at a time and therefore doesn't flow well. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Done. But per your guide, should I leave the number as "28,000 or change it to "twenty eight thousand" or something?
I think either, or even "28 thousand"; personally, I'd go for the numeral-only version, but it's up to you. Needs to be consistent within the article, if there are other such instances. Tony(talk) 11:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the numerical version as well. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one's gonna take me a little more time, fixed "some 900" though.
Er that was my mistake, made a couple of edits ago, lol well spotted.
I've changed it, what do you think now? I'm worried there are too many "to"'s.
Agreed, The memorial section was split out by someone else. I'll change the sizes later as well. Could you do me a favour and consider how many columns I should have for the Notes ection. Also where can I put the Commons link?
Err, not my thing; one or two columns? Unsure. Tony(talk) 11:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "costing the lives of approximately 900 servicemen on both sides" is ambiguous; does it refer to 450 from each side, 900 from each, or 1 from the UK and 899 from Argentina? Some clarification is needed. Seegoon (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fix this one when I action Tony's 6th point, thankyou for commenting. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The article's just had an independent copyedit, who tried to tackle your point[52], what do you think now? Ryan4314 (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support I've been through and copyedited - you'll need to check I haven't altered the sense of anything, and if Tony doesn't like it now you can blame me :) I changed the lead fairly drastically, so please feel free to revert back anything you don't like! I left the blue-on-blue wikilink in that quotation for now, as I think you made a case for it :) I've also increased the image sizes a little. Only one thing preventing my support: File:HMS Cardiff Sea Dart Launcher.JPG could do with straightening up or cropping or something. EyeSerenetalk 14:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have indeed been bold in your copyedit lol. The real question is: Does Tony approve???
I was a bit shocked by the "The board of inquiry's findings led to allegations of a cover-up" though. Only Bicheno and Dalyell have hinted at it and we're kind of declaring it outright, in the lead!
Re: the launcher pic, here's the original, I spun it to align it, which do you prefer? Ryan4314 (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, apologies for that. It's the difference between copyediting and copytasting :)
Re "cover-up", I agree it's only mentioned in the Bicheno quote, so maybe I've over-egged it. I've toned that sentence down. Better?
Re the image, I understand why you've rotated it to get the vertices vertical, but I think cropping it in that configuration will cut off too much of the launcher. Maybe there's a happy medium, where it can be rotated slightly then cropped? I may have a play with it later if I've got the time. EyeSerenetalk 11:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, like I said I appreciate any help I can get
Better
Yea if you look at the image history you can see I also tried morphing it as well, but I think it squashed the image too much, not very encyclopaedic. I also wonder if the BOLD font in the lead should encapsulate the words "friendly fire". Ryan4314 (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amended per your last (though from WP:MOSBOLD, I wonder if losing the bolded text altogether might be appropriate in this case). I haven't had a chance to try altering the image yet; I think the prior version may be better, though it is slightly wonky. Whatever, I've decided to support regardless, as I feel the article is comprehensive, well-sourced, informative, and complies with enough of our house style guide to warrant FA status :) EyeSerenetalk 14:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, you've read my mind, that bold text does look a bit ugly, I think we should chop it all together as well, are we allowed to? Thankyou very much for your support. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not (I've done it anyway). "If the title of the article is a non-trivial description, it is not bold in the text (and need not appear verbatim at all)" seems to be the relevant part of WP:MOSBOLD. EyeSerenetalk 18:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind, but is ok if you move your "support" !vote up to the top of this post like Tony did, I'm just so paranoid the closing admin will miss it lol. Sorry to be panicky, just really want this article to succeed. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Argentine Hercules.jpg - Why do you believe this is covered by Argentinian law and not, for example, British law? It looks like it could be an official British photo taken by an Argentinian, but I'm not sure what law applied at the time it was taken - Argentinian or British.
Hi, thanks for taking the the time to review the article.
Done
He was the there mate, he took em. These same images were scrutinized at HMS Cardiff's FAC too. Although can I just remind you, only one of those images was taken in actual "war time" as per the image descriptions.
This link should contain the data you need. The photo was taken just after the islands came under Argentine occupation by official Argentine photographers. Whilst under occupation the Argentines enacted martial law, installed a governor and even changed place names. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but how do we know it was published at that time and not, say, later by the British Ministry of Defence in Britain? Note that the photo appears to be a British photo. If you would like, I can bring in some expert advice on this one. :) Awadewit (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some expert advice would be much appreciated. At this time I can't confirm, I'll research a little deeper. I'm sure it would've been published, at the time, by the Argentines, as this Hercules was the plane that deported the British marines on the same day as the invasion.[53] The mass amount of PR photos taken on that day and then subsequently published by the Argentines has been documented by Falklands war historians such as Freedman, Hastings and Brooks. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is looking like at this time, we simply don't have enough information about the photo. Perhaps another photo could be found? Awadewit (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The unstruck image listed above cannot remain in the article with the current information listed on the image description page. I would suggest removing it and finding another photo. Awadewit (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of this FAC I have simply removed the image. Ryan4314 (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I contributed the memorial image, glad that it is being used. The references seem to be mainly web based, is this incident recorded in the many books that have been written on the war? Is there scope for a 'Further reading' section? I believe that the commons link is treated as an external link so we should have an 'External links' header above it. Are there any relevant external links that have not been used as references that could be added? Having just steered an article successfully through FAC I was amazed at the apparently obvious things that I had missed. Best regards. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Afraid not in regards to the "further reading" section. The incident isn't explored in Falklands War books as the details weren't published until last year. I don't think there are any external links that I haven't used as references either, which leads to the style question, do we want an "External links" section with just the commons box in it? Ryan4314 (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough. I checked Template:Commons, it normally goes in the EL section, if there is not one then it goes at the top of the last section (I learned something!), I moved it to the top of 'Notes' and added the aviation list navbox that goes in all av project articles while I was there. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your contributions, is there anything else outstanding? Ryan4314 (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts... I bumped the Commonscat box upto the above section per WP:IAR, as it's placement in the "notes" section creates a huge column of white space. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A really nice article to which I have no comments for improvement. Congratulations.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:34, 12 October 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 page was mostly (two-thirds) written on the afternoon and early evening of New Year's Day 2009, born out of the frustration I felt at how the history of this region was being written on Wikipedia. Until a few weeks before I was as ignorant of this history as most of you reading this nomination note likely are. My ramping up the learning curve was greatly helped by the two volumes of the 1897 edition of Lewis Rice's Mysore Gazetteer, that I received as a Christmas present. The writing then sputtered along for a few months until April when I had a peer review in which User:Like I Care and User:Mattisse made extensive comments. User:Mattisse copy edited parts of the article as well. Then, however, the article went cold and hasn't been edited since.
I feel that this is a valuable history and hope that your feedback will make it come to life. What I am proud of even more are the maps and pictures, many of which are unavailable anywhere else on the web. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: (written after user:Fifelfoo's first three posts below) I have used Lewis Rice's 1908 History published in the Imperial Gazetteer of India. In the section Why I am using Rice on the article's talk page, I explain my reasons for doing so. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent work turning the sourcing around! Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Decline: Major rewrite necessary. Your sources are completely unacceptable, compare your source reliance to your bibliography. You are reliant on PRIMARY sources necessarily leads to OR / SYN. Layout hasn't passed basic conformance, Safari fails to render correctly.Fifelfoo (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fifelfoo both for the support and for the valuable feedback you gave me; thanks also for taking the time to explain things to me! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which primary history have I used? I haven't used the Gazetteers proper, only the history sections in the Gazetteers. Those are used all the time as secondary sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your bibliography lists as a "Classical" item, and the age of the source and its provenance, indicate "Imperial Gazetteer of India: Provincial Series (1908), Mysore and Coorg, Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing. Pp. xvii, 365, 1 map." should be treated as a Primary source. I really cannot see why you're using a government publication from 1908 as your key citation source. There are other worrying sourcing issues, such as your bibliography entry, "Manor, James (1975), "Princely Mysore before the Storm: The State-Level Political System of India's Model State, 1920-1936", Modern Asian Studies 9 (1): 31–58" being cited in relation to 1565-1760. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its possible that there are some references in the list that have not been cited. But that is an easy fix, I can easily remove them. As for your first question, it is not really a government publication; well it is, but its history, geography, economics, sections were written by academics. I am not using the Gazetteer part as I've already stated. As to why I am using the 1908 publication, is slightly more complicated to answer. The easy answer is that there is no more modern reliable historiography for certain periods of Mysore's history. This is not my view, but that of the foremost historian of pre-modern Mysore, Sanjay Subrahmanyam at UCLA, whose papers and books I have used as well. We have had this discussion on another page before. I will provide an answer tomorrow when I locate that discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the academic standards of the British Empire in 1908 varied slightly to current standards, it is incumbent upon you to identify the actual source you are relying on, which includes identifying the Section of the Gazette "History of Mysore to 1760" for example, and, if possible to identify the Author of the section (if indicated in the work, or "well known"). This would have removed a significant proportion of my immediate hostility to the source. But you are quite clearly over reliant on it, and it sounds like Subrahmanyam's historiography as included in the article terminates in the mid-twentieth century. Obviously I'm drawn to question: why are you reliant on pre 1950s sources? This is really going to be a refrain of criticism, despite Subrahmanyam's pre 1950 historiography. If this is insurmountable then the sourcing issue needs to be explicitly mentioned at the top, even then, moderns quoting classicals approvingly, if the moderns have passed peer / academic publisher review, is superior due to changes in disciplinary techniques. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(I do have to go to bed, :), but let me give you a brief answer now.) I can easily change the IGI cites to include the author's name. Subrahmanyam discusses the historiography of the pre-modern period in his paper, Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1989), "Warfare and state finance in Wodeyar Mysore, 1724–25: A missionary perspective", Indian Economic Social History Review, 26 (2): 203–233, which is also now available as a chapter in a later book. I will provide the book cite and quotes tomorrow as well. I believe it is available on Google Books. Until then, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS I should add that this is the kind of feedback I'm looking for, so thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) To user:Fifelfoo, I have now changed "contemporary" and "classical" reference headings to "secondary" and "primary," removed the uncited references, and changed the IGI reference name to Rice 1908. I have also added a section, Why I am using Rice to the article's talk page. Please read it and give me more feedback. I will be busy for the next two hours, but will reply then. Your earlier feedback was very helpful. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»
Fowler&fowler's work is excellent. I will continue engaging in a horribly pedantic expert (to the extent I'm a historian, not a historian of "feudal" India) manner on the article's talk page. Please consider my "Decline" as being soley about ensuring the excellence of this article, and always open to change. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, his work is truly magnificent and I applaud him for his outstanding prose, but the article needs serious wikification. I think this article needs a very very thorough revamp in order for it to read more like a solid reference, rather than a textbook. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Sorry, I just got back. Phew. To Fifelfoo: A horribly pedantic expert is what I need, so I look forward to your various critiques on the talk page as well as here. My interest is more in improving the article than getting an FA star. So, any and all help will be welcome. I have to do the alt text first. I will then respond to your remarks on the talk page. To Kuzwa: Could you suggest how I might go about doing this wikification and revamp? Look forward to your reply! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS By the way, what did you mean when you said that "Safari fails to render correctly?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious to ask why all the images are aligned on the right-hand side of this article, usually they alternate no? Secondly, while using your (please see Map X) scheme, which I will not lie I am quite a fan of, however in the Nayakas of Ikkeri and Kanara trade, 1565–1763 section you use (see accompanying map), this seems a bit vague to me an inconsistent with earlier style in the article. Perhaps finishing numbering all the maps would make this flow more smoothly? Just my thoughts. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(To Kuzwa) Both good suggestions. Will implement tomorrow after I've reduced the number of images. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Safari is a major macintosh web browser. Your pictures spill into (and underneath) the right hand column of the two column references when viewed in Safari. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(To Fifelfoo) Will reduce the images and make them alternate (left/right). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alt text done; thanks.The images need alt text; please see WP:ALT.Eubulides (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Eubulides, as I say above, I'll be busy for about 2 hours, but will attend to this then. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm starting work on the alt text now. (He says many hours later.)Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done with the alt text. I counted 23 images (I think). Please let me know if the alt text looks OK and also whether I've missed anything. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One image (the black-and-white portrait in the notes section) is missing alt text. I think the layout issues mentioned above could be fixed if some images were shifted to the left. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing! Will take care of that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The alt text looks quite good (thanks). A few comments:
Some phrases could be removed as not being that important in the interests of WP:ALT#Brevity and WP:ALT#Maps. These include "in yellow", "(in red)", "in green", "in blue", "in orange, green, and various shades of pink and yellow", "all colored in various pastel shades", "colored in a very light shade of peach and bordered in red", "in dark gray".
For maps it's better to say "west of" rather than "left of", and similarly for "(l. to r.)", "left, right, and bottom", "on the left", as per WP:ALT#Maps.
The alt text for File:ColinMckenzieVeejanaggur1801.jpg is a bit long, and contains details (like sky color, clouds, figures in foreground) that aren't that important. I'd shorten it in the interests of WP:ALT#Brevity, to focus on the main point of the image, namely the ruins. Similarly for File:ViewShimoga1805.jpg and File:Kolar mausoleum1794.jpg. This is not a big deal; it's OK to keep it longer (I'm saying this more so that you don't have to work so hard next time....).
Some phrases aren't visually obvious and should be removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability: "poligar", "his son", "over the millenniums, have been sculpted by the weather", "likely a valet or assistant", "possibly the Holy Quran", "(now Sri Lanka)"
Some phrases duplicate the caption and should be removed as per WP:ALT#Repetition: "(the Wodeyar ruler)"
A few WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid: "A black and white photograph of", "is shown", "shows", "This picture"
Sorry, Eubulides, I didn't see your post earlier. Thanks! This is very helpful. Will implement. I have to say, I'm beginning to like the idea of alt-text writing (especially after reading your post). It is a bit like a puzzle, a visual-verbal puzzle in the constraint is brevity (something like, "describe (only) the visual aspects of the picture as completely as possible in less than 25 words"), and I could see myself getting hooked on it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it looks pretty good now. Yes, it's a bit like a puzzle at first, though one gets the hang of it after a while. Eubulides (talk) 07:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have too many pictures and maps. They overlay the references and are distracting.
I have reservations about the article referring to itself, i.e. that it is the first of three parts, and statements like "That, however, would happen after the period covered in this article." I may be alone in this reservation.
Actually, the spelling and dialect should be Indian English, but I think we can remove some of the tendency of Indian English to go to personality, colour, and extensive ornate description (if that's okay). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent)Reply to Mattisse
Yes, you're right about the pictures. Let me decide what to cull.
You are right too about the "self-reference." Will remove.
I feel that the prose is a tad busy (too many details, and some repetition). Will do some pruning tomorrow.
I feel there isn't enough summing up. (I'm myself having a hard time keeping track of who is doing what!) Will work on that too.
As for spelling, I use US spelling. We can convert to British spelling, but that shouldn't be too hard. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Reply to Fifelfoo) Not sure what difference there is between the "standard" (written) registers of the two dialects (British and Indian). In any case, someone else will have to do that. Perhaps we can hold off on that for now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've read on wikipedia, apart from -ise British spelling, Indian academic English has a few less-common (but entirely correct in International Englishes) grammatical constructions, which are acceptable alternatives commonly used in India. The standard International English grammatical constructions are still fine in Indian English (and probably preferred in written academic Indian English). So the main thing is eventually we go through and -ise / -re the lot of it, to meet the Indian topicality. -ising is probably something to do just before the eventual Good Article review, before going for FA for real. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will do this tomorrow. I wonder if there is automated way to do this on Wikipedia (a British English editor which underlines misspellings in red)? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a spell check which will do that. —mattisse (Talk) 12:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, then would you like to do that? Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Replies to Fifelfoo, Kuzwa, Mattisse and Dabomb87) I have now Wikified the images to alternate l/r and space them (apart) vertically. Is the new arrangement continuing to cause problems in your browsers? I have also numbered all the maps per Kuzwa's suggestion. As for culling some images, what would be your top 5 (to get rid of)? Haven't done the last alt-text yet, but flat out of time for now. "Time you old Gypsy man, won't you ever stop?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that! Responding to your query on unnecessary images I believe File:ColMarkWilks.jpg would be a good candidate for removal. It doesn't seem to be an absolutely vital image in the article and in it's current placement makes the See Also section look slightly awkward. (In Chrome at least) --Kuzwa (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kuzwa. That's a good suggestion. Off with his head! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) I have now also removed the self-referencing in the lead; in the process, I lightly copy edited it as well. I don't like "pertain" (or "refer" for that matter); perhaps one of you can suggest another word or approach. Will check again in four of five hours. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(To Dabomb87) I have now added alt-text to the last image of Col. Wilks (which might be deleted anyway!) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RB88, I've fixed the dabs and the deadlink. Didn't realize that I could have used toolbox up top myself! Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is entirely a political history, without even the cursory paragraphs on social, religious and cultural etc aspects that often serve to make a political history a "general" one. This is fine, but the title ought to reflect this. Some of the maps in particular could usefully be put in galleries. Some image sizes should be fixed - if you have 300px thumb preference set, like me, they overlap side by side, and at the 180px default they are too small. I don't know if the scans from the 1943 history, like Raja Wodeyar, are really acceptable quality to use in an FA, with the weave of the paper, or whatever that background pattern is, so clearly visible. Is there really nothing better available? Are there no contemporary free photos of palaces? Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Reply to Johnbod) Those are all very good points.
This is the first of a three-part history of which the other two periods are: 1760–1799, and 1800–1947. The problem we face is that there is very little reliable historiography for this period 1565–1760, and a surfeit of it for the other two. To be sure, there are revisionist monarchist hagiographies that wax eloquent about the legacies of each ruler, but none of them are reliable, and none cited by modern reliable sources. (Please see the section "Why I am using Rice" on the article's talk page.) I am in the process of scouring the sources for a "Social History" section. Once that is ready, in a few days, I'd like to hear from you and others again whether it passes muster. If it doesn't then I have no problem changing the page name to "Political history of Mysore and Coorg ...."
I will also be moving the "Sources and historiography" section up to Section 1, and changing its title to "Historiographic difficulties," so that reviewers and readers will know off the bat what they are up against.
We are agreed on reducing the number of images; I have already asked the other reviewers for their top five candidates for deletion. I agree too that the Raja Wodeyar and other grainy pictures are not FA quality, but those are the only pictures around of the rulers. (Not sure why they are grainy since the original plates in the book are not. Perhaps I need to scan them again at a much higher resolution or much lower.) Although no palaces from that period survive, other monuments do; so your suggestion of replacing the pictures of rulers by those of their "constructions" is a good one. Let me look into that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS Delighted to put maps into galleries. (I was under the impression that galleries are not allowed in FAs.) Will try out your image size suggestions too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Galleries are somewhat discouraged but not prohibited. Please see WP:IG and WP:PIC#Galleries for formatting advice. Eubulides (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've now removed the grainy images, replaced them with nicer ones, all set to 300px. Let me know what you think of the images. The maps are in galleries. I do have new alt-text issues that I will fix next. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Update: As of 12:08 GMT October 2, here is where things stand:
I have increased the size of the images to 300px.
The images now alternate left/right.
I've put the maps in galleries.
I've replaced grainy images of kings, with better images of their constructions.
The new images don't have alt-text yet, neither do the gallery maps. I will be adding those soon. Many thanks to Mattisse, Fifelfoo, Kuzwa, Dabomb87, Johnbod, and Eubilides for help with images and alt-text.
The page name has been changed to "Political history ..." per talk page advice.
Remaining issues:
It was felt by Mattisse (and I myself) that the prose was too anonymously busy: long lists of links (usually of places), but no context to help the reader. I am now working on reducing the clutter, adding the context, and, in general, moving from quantitative formulations to qualitative ones (sourced, of course). I've finished the first sound of such revision on the lead, and sections 1 and 2. I hope this will be finished before Monday, October 5. This is done now, at least the first cut. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will be expanding the "Rajas of Coorg" section. Done now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will also be working on a "Assessment of the period" section. Done.
I will be revising the "Historiographical difficulties" section and incorporating a few sentences from it into the lead. Done. Assessment and historiography is now one section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are some new alt-text issues (since new images have been added and maps put into galleries). Will resolve these as well. If I'm missing something, please let me know.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS I hope to have 2, 3, 4, and 5 finished by Thursday October 8. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC). All issues resolved. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there any reason why you are forcing a 300px size for images that are not technical and don't need to be this size? I'm sure it's not against Manual of Style policy, but I think it should be amongst the discouragements for the new slimmed versions of the MoS. If you can't think of a solid reason I would consider just leaving it as thumb (180). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a personal view. With luck, the 180 default will not be with us for long, but in the meantime fixed sizes of 300px are entirely within MoS guidelines. Most people seem to feel 180 is too small, though I agree that in an ideal world with a larger default, fixing would not be needed. The maps & landscapes would be impossible to make any sense of at 180; some would say most images are. Johnbod (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's a personal view. I have no issue with maps and such being of 300px, but otherwise that size seems unnecessarily large. At 300px, the ivory throne image takes up about half the space of that section, and it is entirely decorative; I would rather an image be too small than too large, because at least then it does not affect the text around it as much. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the ivory throne is a problem; I was worrying about its size too. What if I reduce all images to 250px (as a compromise) for now? You guys can tell me what you think. Also, I'll try to crop the throne image a little (i.e. its height). Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much improved, especially the ivory throne. I have no further issues, so have my Support, it's a great historical-political article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) All the issues (except additional alt-text, which I will be adding in bits and pieces during the day, and conversion to Indian English spelling, which will be done later) have now been dealt with. I welcome further comments from Mattisse, Fifelfoo, Kuzwa, Dabomb87, Johnbod, Eubilides, MasterOfHisOwnDomain, Rafablu88, and other reviewers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support all outstanding issues of mine have been dealt with. Looks like a wonderful addition to the Featured Articles. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very clearly written, and fascinating. My only question is whether foreign powers (e.g. British, Dutch, Portuguese) had more influence on the political situation than mentioned in the article. —mattisse (Talk)
Thanks Mattisse! As for the foreign powers, it is possible that the Portuguese and the Dutch did (in the 15 and 16 hundreds) and perhaps the British in the early 1700s. I'll scour the sources more for this. After 1760, of course, the foreign powers (especially the British and the French) did play a big role in Mysore. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
"A new province named Caranatic-Bijapur-Balaghat, consisting of possessions such as Kolar, Hoskote, Bangalore, and Sira, and situated above (or westwards of) the Eastern Ghats range, was soon incorporated and granted to Shahji as a jagir." - by who? Is this the Mughals?
There must be a more precise single link for "Catholic missionaries"
Thanks Johnbod! I have clarified the first sentence. The "jagir" (or temporary gift) land was incorporated into the Sultanate of Bijapur, which itself survived only up to 1686. I've also provided a better link for Catholic missionaries. As I say in my edit summary, shame on me for this, since there is entire Wikipedia portal devoted to Indian Christianity! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support' The article is a dense read, which I think is inevitable on this subject, but meets FA standards in my view. Any no doubt rather speculative figures as to approximate populations over the period that occur in the sources might usefully added in the appropriate places, or collected together. It comes as a bit of a surprise that Tipu Sultan had '12,000 families, mostly of city officials' to move to his new capital. Given their wordy titles, I think the way the main sources are referred to in the text is justified. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Johnbod! You are right about the dense read. I think it reflects my own dense (incomplete or unintegrated) understanding of this history. Hopefully, with time, especially after parts II and III have been written, I'll have more perspective and can streamline the contents more. I'll look for the population numbers. Yes, the 12,000 families does come as a surprise (even to me when I think about it now) since the picture of the river island town (most likely not drawn to perspective) makes it seem unable to accommodate more than a few hundred. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The harvnb link for current ref 17 isn't working (I fixed 61).
The following refs are duplicated, use a refname:
Stein 1987, p. 82 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFStein1987 (help)
Subrahmanyam 1989, p. 206 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSubrahmanyam1989 (help), this includes ref 73. Why is it is parenthesis? Mm40 (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mm40, Thanks for noticing the errors and for correcting footnote 61! I've fixed all the other problems you mention, except possibly the first one (current ref 17). It (along with current ref 16 and 18) are fine in my browser. It is possible that this error may have been corrected as a result of my other fixes. If the reference is still not working, please let me know. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support in general; which is to say, it's out of my field, and I see nothing no obvious public embarrassment.
The sentence in the lead:
By the turn of the eighteenth century, the political landscape had become better defined: the northwestern hills were being ruled by the Nayaka rulers of Ikkeri, the southwestern hills, a part of the Western Ghats range, by the Rajas of Coorg, the southern plains by the Wodeyar rulers of Mysore
is presumably making some distinction by its italics; but what? Are these titles, family names, or simply non-English words (but "Raja"/"Rajah" is an established loan word)? A reader may be able to figure out what is going on with research; but why should she have to? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 16:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:) Good points. Not sure why I had the italics. I guess it was a somewhat confused combination of all of your reasons. I've now removed the italics and provided independent wikilinks for "Nayaka," "Raja," and "Wodeyar," so that a reader can instantly figure out what they mean. If this is still not satisfactory, please let me know. Thanks for your support! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:28, 13 October 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 all the criteria. It is the fifth of five planned articles on major-minor streams flowing through Portland, Oregon. The other four, to which I was the main contributor and which are FA, are Johnson Creek (Willamette River), Balch Creek, Fanno Creek, and Columbia Slough. Since Columbia River, to which I was one of several contributors, is now also FA, only Tryon Creek, Willamette River, and arguably Bull Run River (Oregon) stand between us and a complete set of major and major-minor stream articles of at least GA quality for the city of Portland. The Tryon Creek article has been through a recent peer review, and I believe it is ready. Finetooth (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - meets FA criteria. Well written, great references. Dincher (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words and support. Finetooth (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I peer reviewed this and find it more than meets the FAC criteria (and did then too). Here are a few quibbles:
Should Socrates Hotchkiss Tryon be linked in the lead?
The "From this point" is a bit unclear in From this point, the main stem runs through three closely-spaced culverts with a combined length of 260 feet (79 m) then flows on the surface before entering another culvert, 160 feet (49 m) long under Southwest 30th Avenue at river mile (RM) 4.56 or river kilometer (RK) 7.34. since the previous sentence ends with the creek at the mouth
Thank you for the kind words and support. Both of your quibbles are good ones. I've linked Tryon in the lead and altered the unclear sentence to begin "Not far from the source,... ". Finetooth (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for checking the links and for spotting the one that recently died. I have replaced it with a live link to the same document in the Internet Archive. Finetooth (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent work, as always. I only wish New York had such extensive resources on creeks... :) –Juliancolton | Talk 14:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kinds words and support. I'm often amazed at how much information the City of Portland has gathered and made public. Finetooth (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): RB88 (T) 14:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closed the first time with 2 supports, all sources cleared, alt text good, minor formatting sorted, a pending partial source review from 1 oppose, and a pending prose review. Here we go again. It's my most thorough work by far as it uses pretty much every notable, reliable source found on it. RB88 (T) 14:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Have gone over and over, forwards and backwards, with a fine comb. Fixed all the were/was, have/has malarkey and some of the tense issues. I think some "has" are needed for temporal accuracy, and at the very least for some variation. RB88 (T) 19:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update2 It's now had 3 extensive reviews on top of the ones in the first review. It's also been CEd by Dabomb87. I'm off for this weekend, so I hope to see more comments (and supports, obviously) when I get back. Although, to be honest, I don't think there's much more to be done. RB88 (T) 20:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I take it you're heading for a Bloc Party discography FT? If so, you might need to take Silent Alarm Remixed and Intimacy Remixed to at least GA too, depending on how flexible your definition of the FT would be. Anyway...
"Gordon Moakes has noted that it was impromptu November 2007 single "Flux" that "opened a door to the fact that we could go in any direction" in future works." → "Backing vocalist Gordon Moakes noted that it was the impromptu..." Check the rest of the article for extraneous use of the past perfect tense when the simple past tense would work just as well. I prefer to use the simple past tense as it makes for a more relaxed but still professional tone.
I noticed this on my initial pass, and addressed some, but not all, of those instances. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you, but after all my FAs I'm still not sure about this. To me, the simple past tense gives off the impression of the comment being made at the time the prose is discussing and not, as is the case here, after everything has transpired. I'd appreciate more thoughts. RB88 (T) 03:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)See update[reply]
"from debut album Silent Alarm and A Weekend in the City respectively" → "from their previous albums Silent Alarm and A Weekend in the City respectively".
Addressed this. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. RB88 (T) 03:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Okereke has explained that the ambition was to make something as stylised as R&B or electronica,[20] with the rawness of Silent Alarm and the experience of A Weekend in the City" -> "Okereke explained...electronica, combining the rawness of..."
Addressed this. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. RB88 (T) 03:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Bloc Party were not stifled..." -> "The band were not stifled..."
DONE. RB88 (T) 03:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Intimacy was made available for download on Bloc Party's website on 21 August 2008.[18] Ten MP3 tracks were sold with a plain black JPEG cover for £5/$10, while a £10/$20 option for the online songs and the future expanded CD was also available" -> "Intimacy was made available for download on Bloc Party's website on 21 August 2008: ten MP3 tracks were sold with a plain black JPEG cover for £5/$10; and the MP3 tracks and the future physical release was available for £10/$20"
Seems a bit clunky, no? RB88 (T) 03:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The lyricist has explained...": unnecessary past-perfect use, and it would be helpful to specify (is it Okereke?)
See the comment at the beginning. I'm assuming it's fairly clear following from the previous sentence about his breakup. What do you think? RB88 (T) 03:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no coverage about it, I'm afraid. RB88 (T) 03:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Much of Intimacy features Bloc Party's typical indie rock style.": would be easier to read as an inline list ("The friends went into the shop one at a time: Peter first; Mary second; Thomas last."
I don't fully understand here. The whole paragraph is meant to be a qualifying assertion for the initial sentence. RB88 (T) 03:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)][reply]
Yes, which is why I would prefer to use an inline list because to me it's easy to read. Sceptre(talk) 10:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DONE, but not a big fan of inline lists. Did a workaround with Okereke's assertions like the preceding electronic paragraph. RB88 (T) 15:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Second single "Talons"..." -> "their second single "Talons"..."
DONE. RB88 (T) 03:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Metacritic rating needs a one-word qualifier of quality: it's hard to ascertain whether this uses the "ten point scale" or the "four point scale" (where I work with Doctor Who articles, "average" is actually high as 77%, so I normally say "87% (considered excellent)".
If you click on the Metacritic rating citation link, it actually says "Generally favourable". RB88 (T) 03:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to include said description so we don't have to go citation diving :) Sceptre(talk) 10:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DONE. RB88 (T) 15:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That said, it's overall a good read, and at least GA-quality. Keep up the good work :). Sceptre(talk) 02:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look at the comms soon, but just wanted to say that I should hope it's GA as it passed its nomination. We're talking FA now dammit. :P Also, yes the FT nom has been complete for a while but I wanted to get all three main albums to FA. RB88 (T) 03:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As requested, I'm slowly making my way through the article. Here's my first question: "and the experience of A Weekend in the City" This phrase isn't very precise; how can an album have "experience"? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think he refers to either the experience gained from the album, or the lyrical and musical maturity of the album. Sceptre(talk) 02:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted it. RB88 (T) 03:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several prose issues:
"Bloc Party's wanted to create an album" ("wanted", a verb, cannot follow a possessive)
"further distanced them from the traditional guitar band set-up" (the pronoun "them" refers to "Bloc Party", which is singular; should be "it" or "the band")
"Intimacy saw the return of Paul Epworth and Jacknife Lee" (an album does not possess visual organs and cannot "see" anything)
"the quartet felt they had 'unfinished business'" (the pronoun "they" refers to "quartet", which is singular; should be "it")
"The band were not stifled by varied choices" (the verb "were" does not agree with the singular noun "band")
"Comprehensive sales figures have not been published because Bloc Party have declined to reveal the digital download data." (the verb "have" does not agree with the singular "Bloc Party")
All the above sorted. RB88 (T) 18:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Citation issues (based off rev 314263119 and a random selection of citations):
Ref #21 does not verify that "The release was called 'rushed' by the media"
Added ref for first half of sentence. RB88 (T) 15:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref #25 does not refer to a "pay-what-you-want option"
Used "free" as per source. RB88 (T) 15:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref #27 is a primary source and several of the sentences cited to it are original research
Ref 27 is the MUSIC SHEET for the album which details its instruments, musical notation, and effects!! How can it be OR?? Here's what's cited to it and ask yourself "Can it be ascertained from a music sheet?":
"The song contains studio effects such as overdubbing."[27] YES
""Mercury" continues the Big Beat theme and contains a chorus that is vocally manipulated.[27]" YES, but I guess using the genre Big Beat is a bit off. I'll reword.
"features brass dissonance as harmony." YES, but I'll remove harmony for full non-ORship.
""Zephyrus" begins with a solitary vocal line accompanied only by a drum machine pattern,"[27] YES
""Signs" is the only song that does not include guitars" YES
""Halo" has a fast tempo coupled with a prominent guitar-oriented melody which utilises only four chords, while "Trojan Horse" features syncopated guitars and distortion."[27] YES
""Talons" also incorporates distortion from both lead and rhythm guitars,"[27] YES
"and sixteenth note guitar riffs."[27] YES
""Biko" has a slower tempo and includes guitar arpeggi throughout, while "Ion Square" incorporates guitar overdubbing and an extensive use of hi-hat patterns."[27] YES
"The track features broken beats, crashing drum finales, and layered vocals."[27] YES, but I'll reword slightly cos of the crashing thing.
RB88 (T) 15:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Images:[reply]
File:Intimacy cover.jpg fails WP:NFCC#1 as there is already a free image in the article which serves the purpose of identifying the album.
Only those who got the digital download would identify it from the free cover. The artwork is always the one to take precedence as it was released physically under it. There is commentary about the stylised shot of the couple kissing. To recap what criterion 1 asks:
"Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" NO, the download cannot convey the artwork which is an essential part of the album, especially of this release which has the theme of Intimacy and the fact that the physical release was different not just in artwork but in tracklisting, too.
"Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" Resounding, NO. Art, from paintings to photography, can never be fully summarised without visual identification. Also, the album cover is in the infobox and not the text.
To be honest, RB88 is right about the album. It is an album cover, but not an ideal one to identify the album; most, if not, all people identify the kissing couple as the album cover. Therefore, it does not serve the same purpose and is NFCC#1 compliant. Sceptre(talk) 17:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for now. Stifle (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of my outstanding objections are based in personal taste and my own interpretation of policy rather than the FAC, so I will weak support. Good luck. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. RB88 (T) 14:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
In "Origins and recording":
Okereke has stated that having two producers allowed for musical experimentation similar to Brian Eno and David Byrne collaborations... this is really weird and truncated, and distances itself from the source in a dangerously original direction. I'd expand and get closer to the source: Okereke has stated that having two producers allowed for musical experimentation. He felt confident that Lee would encourage the band's further shift in musical direction, and compared their collaboration with that of Brian Eno and David Byrne.
I like the first half. Not sure the second half is really that important in the grand scheme of things. RB88 (T) 21:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[...] Lee aided the band members' evolution with electronica by creating tracks with them. Evolution towards a more electronic style? What do you mean by "creating tracks with them"? Doesn't the producer usually have a creative influence? :)
Yep, "electronic direction". Producers have an influence but they don't normally craft the songs with the bands, only tweak some knobs like Epworth did. RB88 (T) 21:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They were not stifled by having varied recording options and decided to record the first ten tracks crafted after adjudging first ideas to often be the best.Adjudging? Really? Less is more, folks :) This whole sentence borders on the unintelligible. Try simplifying it and breaking it up.
Truncated it. RB88 (T) 21:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The band thrived under the pressure of timed sessions, which lasted only two weeks. "Thrived" sounds a bit excessive, but that's only my personal opinion. I'd use cooler, more distanced language.
Quoted it. RB88 (T) 21:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moakes has indicated that there was no worry about whether a song could be recreated live in concert in the same way as it would appear on record. This is a very interesting statement. Do any of the later sources mention anything related during tours, e.g. do any reviewers mention any differences between the album as a live act and its studio version?
Don't think it really matters tbh. That's what Moakes said. Plus in Live and Intimate, most of songs were performed as a quartet rather than with all the studio trickery (and brass sections and chamber choirs lol). RB88 (T) 21:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Promotion and release":
a webcast during a forum with fans—say what? Was this a discussion forum? The band's website?
Simplified it. RB88 (T) 21:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Lyrics":
The narrative in the songs occurs between two people and focuses on how lovers, friends, and enemies relate to each other; Okereke has pointed out that "it's about moments of shared vulnerability". This is so close to his original wording that I'd just make the whole thing a quotation: Okereke has pointed out that "All the action in the songs occurs between two people. It’s about how lovers and friends and even enemies relate to each other. It's about moments of shared vulnerability."
Reworded for non-quotable paraphrasing. RB88 (T) 21:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Dummy interview has an excellent quote from Okereke—"It’s almost like all the humanity has been bleached out."—and a follow-up question from the interviewer. That is really cool. Why wasn't this made present in the article, even if briefly?
Added it to composition. RB88 (T) 21:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits. You know what? I'm cool with the rest. The prose is solid, and I especially like the "Bonus tracks" section (the treatment of bonus tracks in A Weekend In the City bothered me during its FAC). I do echo Stifle's concerns about the sheet music (see WP:PRIMARY and its paragraph on interpreting information found in primary sources), but I honestly don't think it violates policy in any way. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed comments (again). RB88 (T) 11:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeSupport - I know little about popular music, but this article was clear to an ignorant reader like myself. :) Still, there are a few issues that need to be fixed:
Added the composition information to the specific rationale. The file follows the template I've used for all three of my FA samples to cover all the bases: summary, legalese, specific rationale. Plus, all my music samples are always cited on top of the critical commentary/description in the text. You never see that. RB88 (T) 02:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that some of the information sourced to the sheet music could be considered WP:OR.
""Mercury" continues the prominent drumming theme and contains a vocally manipulated chorus." - How can you justify "prominent" and "vocally manipulated"?
Replaced prominent with complex, which can be ascertained from a music sheet. The vocally manipulated bit is from the notes of the composition which detail how a song should be performed in terms of equipment, i.e. pedals and vocoder, hence the term vocal manipulation. RB88 (T) 02:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified the drumming comment with more detail from the sheet. RB88 (T) 02:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"an attempt at drum and bass" - How can you justify "an attempt"?
That's cited to the Fender ref. RB88 (T) 02:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
""Halo" has a fast tempo coupled with a prominent guitar-oriented melody that uses only four chords, while "Trojan Horse" features syncopated guitars and distortion" - How can you justify "prominent"?
Removed and simplified a bit. RB88 (T) 02:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
""Biko" has a slower tempo and includes guitar arpeggi throughout, while "Ion Square" incorporates guitar overdubbing and an extensive use of hi-hat patterns" - How can you justify "extensive"?
Explained it better, i.e. the use of hi-hat patterns throughout. RB88 (T) 02:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The track features broken beats, prominent drumming patterns, and layered vocals" - How can you justify "prominent"?
Removed it all. Broken beats seems to be enough on its own. RB88 (T) 02:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These issues are actually not that large, so I look forward to their resolution and striking my oppose.
Thanks. Please revisit. RB88 (T) 02:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding so quickly! I've struck my oppose and now supported. Awadewit (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I think this is my first FA review, done plenty of FLCs in the past so we'll see how I go. Going to try and keep it short & simple, because I'm already liking the article very much. My comments are up for discussion, so if you have any issues be sure to dispute, etc.
Studio album would usually be wikilinked in the lead, its not the most common term and easier to be clear about these things.
"physical form" and the later "physical release" may be worth considering Wikilinks for. It's a fairly ambiguous term that could be specified by linking to Compact Disc, for example.
Workaround. Used compact disc in the lead. The other mention comes after the price of the CD earlier in the paragraph. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood.
The lead is a little thin. You could expand on the singles and reviews.
Single "Mercury" hit #16 on the UK charts before the band had announced the release of the album (which eventually happened just 10 days following).
Mention things like the reviewers calling it their "peak" or finest career moment. Then emphasise a little more about the bad choices or not living up to the 'radical statement the band set out to achieve'.
Bulked it up with a bit more detail on promotion and the charting singles. Expanded the critics bit a bit, but I wouldn't want to put actual quotes in the lead as there is space to discuss them in the crit section. I like to keep the lead general and as a recap. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good work.
"Chief lyricist Okereke completed most of the songwriting before the recording process." → Chief lyricist Okereke completed most of the songwriting prior to commencing the recording process.
I like your way too but copyreditors always change it as there's an adage that says, in tight prose, less words is more. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood.
"Ten MP3 tracks were sold with a plain black JPEG cover for £5/$10, and a £10/$20 option for the online songs and the future expanded CD was also available" - If the article is written in British English and the CD was originally released in the UK for sale in pounds - I think just £5 and £10 would be fine here. It overcomplicates things by including the, I assume, US dollars.
"The release was called "rushed" by the media" - who are "the media"? Specifying an example or two wouldn't go astray in a short paragraph such as this.
It's linked in the lead, which I treat as a part of the text, and hate to overlink. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood.
The Content section header is indented due to the above picture for me, something to fix up?
That's the way wiki works I'm afraid. Depends on browser, screen resolution, etc. I had a look at both IE and Firefox. It looks worse on the other side of the text I think. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could move the image to the top of the promotion section, looks good there. Looks neat still anyway, so don't worry too much.
The Ares ("God of War") article refers to him as the "Olympian god of warfare"; no capitals? Same goes for Zephyrus. No capitals?
"while "Zephyrus" concerns an apology following neglect" - seems a little out of place, perhaps try to implement it into the above mention of it. Would help explain the importance of the Greek references better.
That's how Kele explained it to the ref. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should have probably checked myself.
I won't read too much into Composition, but will suggest that it may be worth mentioning their previous styles and the progression on this record.
There's a sentence at the start of each paragraph. That was all that was discussed in the sources, plus I'd rather focus more on what's in this album rather than compare and contrast excessively. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what i was saying here, got wrapped up in my own mind.
"that Epworth and Lee" → "that producers Epworth and Lee" (Just to remind the reader)
Uncut (magazine), it would be preferred if you used publications in the list at WP:ALBUM/REVSIT. It seems perfectly reliable, and should probably be added to the list, this is more just a note I suppose.
It should definitely be added. Been going since 1996 and is owned by NME's media company. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will be added soon I see. No problem.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Track listing states that the track listing template should only be used in "more complicated situations". This does not appear to be anything more than very basic, no alternate writers or producers, featured artists or anything. Should be formatted as per usual method.
Hmmm, it seems a bit neater and nicer to me this way. It looks a bit confusing with the loads of quote marks, dashes, and numbers without the table. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I think we have to stick with what the template page says, and this is in no way complicated.
Charts:
They're an English band, so only UK should be listed first. The size of music markets is a very unnecessary and adjustable way of ordering things.
I don't sort by size. I only put the markets where they have a label at the top. The reasoning is that time and effort and promotion (which is discussed in the text) was specifically geared into those markets and this has to be reflected in the table. I also include places where albums did not chart if a contracted label is present in that country. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Perhaps take this to WP:Record charts as a proposal option?
ACharts is largely discouraged as a source. It's an unlicensed source with multiple deprecated charts published to some extent on the site. The UK charts are easy to find better sources for; use Zobbel, Chart Stats or The OCC.
Having done a few source dissections, I like the Zobbel and Chart Stats way of recording stats. Pretty comprehensive, but I've always followed WP:CHARTS. I'd rather keep it till an amendment is made there. In fact, I might start a talk page discussion which you could join. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following the talk page discussion at WP:CHARTS, EveryHit has been proven reliable as its contents have been cited by the BBC and British MPs during policy discussions: [58], [59]. So I've replaced ACharts. RB88 (T) 18:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did the singles chart anywhere else?
Not in the English-speaking world, no. I usually keep it to those markets. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is one in Austria and another couple in Belgium, nothing too important you're missing though.
Someone will have to probably double check the information alluded to in sources (already being done above I see), excluding that and what I've mentioned, then I'm happy to support this very soon. k.i.a.c(talktome - contribs) 06:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WesleyDodds did about 75% of it in the first nom before it was closed. I did the rest and the peeps above have contributed a lot. You're more than welcome to have a snoop. I think they're pretty much spot on. RB88 (T) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Handing in my Support. Just go over my replies, might be one or two little things you might want to adjust. Otherwise, all comments resolved. k.i.a.c(talktome - contribs) 02:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Ruslik_Zero 16:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I think the article about the largest moon of Uranus is ready to become featured. Ruslik_Zero 16:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - No issues; didn't check ALT text. NW(Talk) 22:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent article. About time!
Titania probably underwent an early endogenically–driven resurfacing event that obliterated its older, heavily cratered surface. - is that an endash? If so, it should be a dash
Infrared spectroscopy conducted in 2001–2005 revealed the presence of water ice as well as carbon dioxide on the surface of Titania, which in turn gave rise to an idea that the moon may possess a tenuous carbon dioxide atmosphere with a surface pressure of about one 10 trillionth of a bar. - conducted from...
The resurfacing may have been either endogenic in nature, involving the eruption of fluid material via interior (cryovolcanism) - could you replace 'via'?
The geology of Titania was influenced by two competing forces: impact crater formation and endogenic resurfacing.[29] - Plz link endogenic in the lead instead
I fixed all above. Ruslik_Zero 07:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Well written and comprehensively covers the major known facts about this satellite of Uranus. The only thing I could think to change would be to maybe replace the Messina Chasma image in the Surface Features section with perhaps a labeled global image pointing out the locations of features described in the section, or with a montage of cutouts showing these features. Might make it easier for readers to follow along. --Volcanopele (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will make a labeled image. Ruslik_Zero 12:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had been thinking the same thing. It would be nice to see craters such as Calphurnia also labeled. -- Kheider (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No major problems that I could see. Serendipodous 11:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A couple of tiny tweaks I did, otherwise good to go. Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support but please cleanup the table a bit: move the feature type one column to the left; why is "Belmont Chasma"/"Chasma" and "Adriana"/"Crater" is not "Adriana Crater"/"Crater"; merge row 2&3 for the type column. Also, the caption "Messina Chasma" should be expanded. Nergaal (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the caption and merged the cells. However I think that specifying "crater" is not necessary, because majority of features are craters. "Crater" is a default here. I only specified "chasma" or "rupes", because they are different. In addition, craters are frequently called simply by their names without specifying that a feature is a crater. Ruslik_Zero 18:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks great to me. I will be glad to see the moon (one size below Pluto) finally featured. :) -- 15:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Comments -
CUrrent ref 2 (Planetary Sattellite ..) lacks a last access date. (i'd have fixed it myself but I couldn't figure out where to fix it in your referencing templates..)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added accessdate. Ruslik_Zero 15:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments—It looks to be FA quality for the most part. There were just a couple of paragraphs where I had concerns:
"It might be produced locally from carbonates or organic materials under the influence of the energetic charged particles coming from the magnetosphere of Uranus or solar ultraviolet radiation." This sentence has some ambiguity because it implies the 'solar ultraviolet radiation' consists of 'energetic charged particles'.
I swapped 'solar ultraviolet radiation' with 'energetic charged particles'. Ruslik_Zero 18:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The next sentence only seems relevant to the statement about charged particles coming from the magnetosphere. It makes little sense in the context of solar UV, unless I'm missing something. "This hypothesis would explain the asymmetry in its distribution, because the trailing hemisphere is subject to a more intense magnetospheric influence than the leading hemisphere."
"The peculiar geometry of the Uranian system causes the moons' poles to be warmer on average than their equatorial regions." I'm not sure I fully grasp this one. My intuition tells me the poles will experience warm and cold extremes that will average out. Is it because, when comparing to the equator, the temperatures during the polar warm periods outweigh the cold periods?—RJH (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The poles receive more solar heat than the equator. So, it is plausible that they are on average warmer. I changed the sentence to say specifically that the poles receive more solar energy than the equator leaving out possible effects. Ruslik_Zero 18:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. High-quality article. Comments
"the former appears to be redder than the latter by 8%" - please explain how the color was evaluated here.Materialscientist (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a note. Ruslik_Zero 19:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"a system of enormous canyons (grabens)" - It is unclear here and further in the text whether or not graben=canyon. If yes, I would use canyon instead of graben (technical term) all through the article.Materialscientist (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed grabens from the lead and added a clarification in the main text. Ruslik_Zero 19:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it necessary? The surface features are labeled on the nearby image. In addition, Messina Chasma is the most prominent features and unlikely to be confused with anything else. Ruslik_Zero 19:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding an arrow and a note in that image file will increase the clarity of that individual image and will help the reader (no need to zoom another image to understand this one). Thus no, not necessary, but would be nice. Materialscientist (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MOS#Images, is it possible to juggle the images in the "Surface features" section so that text isn't squeezed between two images? I was going to attempt this myself, but didn't find an optimal way to do it. Also, please note and review these.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets all the criteria, or can do so with a little work. The page gives a great discussion of the poem from various sources and has been the product of several hours of work by a group of editors.Mrathel (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to add a note - this poem is almost the opposite of "To Autumn". It was not universally praise, and not even that well known. It has been neglected. So, don't expect a lot of information about critical response, themes, or the rest. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restart, old nomalt text, dabs, images and sources checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reaffirm support. An excellent article that genuinely interested me in the subject—one I admit I've had little experience with. Although the prose has gone through more than a few back-and-forth changes over the last month or two, regardless of the merits of the interim revisions—and despite any minor prose issues further reviews might reveal—what appears in the article right now clearly meets the 1a standard. [quibbles resolved, so trimmed from statement]. Very nice work once again. SteveT • C 22:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the citation problems. They should be fine now. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (disclosure, am a friend of and work with Ottava)
asymmetrical 6-line endings - I see need for three explanations of techinical terms here. Overall quite good, leaning towards support, want to go over it again before I say one way or the other. Ceoil (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't heard of the term before and I don't know what it was doing. I went back to the source and I adjusted the paragraph appropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasnt asking for removal, so much the addition of blue links. But fine. I reread the page again in the interm, and I'm happy. I have some minor quibbles, but can sort them myself. Support. Ceoil (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A bluelink would be interesting, because that term is, for what I can tell, complete nonsense. I rewrote what I -think- it was trying to say. I think it was referring to the last 6 lines of each stanza. I don't know for sure. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reorg'd the Themes sect, are you ok with this. I took liberty, and guessed. Ceoil (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph in your version happens to be the paragraph that introduces where the idea of indolence comes from and is temporally first, as the letter predates the poem. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two images are fine. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I feel as though "Indolence" needs to be wikilinked in some way or place. I'm sure I can't be the only one who doesn't know what it is and wouldn't benefit from it being affirmed.
Lead: "four 1819 odes", I know it's the lead, but this statement to me cries out for the briefest remark on the other four odes, as in: (on a Grecian Urn, on Melancholy, to a Nightingale and Psyche).MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava, it looks like consensus is against me on this one, so no objections from me if you reinstate that. Karanacs (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reworked the lead. See how it reads now. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. The only thing I think left for me to say: is the added content (on indolence/laziness) to the lead repeated elsewhere in the text (i.e. not original content)? But otherwise, Support. Great work. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The word indolence is a redirect to laziness and is an antequated term for laziness. I don't think this would need to be explained in the body of the article. The rest about Keats and poetry appears in the background section and the last paragraph of the themes section. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's an enjoyable read, a good length for the topic, the writing flows nicely, and the sources are all in order, so I'm happy to support. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 22:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Last time around a trip to Nova Scotia prevented me giving this a more than a cursory read-through. I can see no significant problems now, so I'm happy to support this article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - but with three suggestions; I don't like "than most of his contemporarie's works". I think It should be contemporaries', or even "contemporaries's". What do you think? Here, "three figures on a greek vase", I know this is a quote, but should it not be "Greek", upper case? And, lastly, I think the article should be written in UK English. If I am right, then "centers" needs to be "centres" and "favorite" needs to be "favourite". A most engaging article, which I am happy to support. Graham ColmTalk 19:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. "contemporarie" seems to be a typo and it has been fixed. 2. Probably, but I try not to correct the formatting of quotes, as many of my quotes deal with exotic English (you should see some of the stuff Milton wrote, for example). 3. Fixed, except for favorite as that is in a quote. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Another RAAF Air Marshal but one best known as an engineer (as well as a pilot and the service's first parachute instructor). Currently a Good Article, and A-Class in the MilHist project; reckon it meets FAC criteria. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: an excellent article, in my opinion. I see no reason why it shouldn't be featured. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I reviewed this article at GA, and thought it excellent then. I have a couple of points for consideration at FA, but they do not affect my support of the article overall:
I still find this sentence awkward, especially the underlined parts. His new organisation caused some other tensions in the RAAF, with his commitment to [airworthiness] considerations frustrating pilots who found their flying time restricted by the introduction of more rigorous maintenance procedures, while supply officers feared being "outshone" by the new status accorded to engineers, and "black handers"—old-school technical officers who had risen through the ranks—regarded with disdain the prospect of an influx of "silly young blokes with degrees".
Tks for your review/support, Ruth. Heh, I know this one came up at GA but apart from a slight modification to make more like a list (below), I can only throw open to the field and say that I'm willing to take suggestions! Either version for me says what I want to say in a nice punchy manner but maybe there's a better way...
...His new organisation caused some other tensions in the RAAF: new airworthiness considerations frustrated pilots who found their flying time restricted by the introduction of more rigorous maintenance procedures; supply officers feared being "outshone" by the new status accorded to engineers; and so-called "black handers"—old-school technical officers who had risen through the ranks—regarded with disdain the prospect of an influx of "silly young blokes with degrees". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved. Plus, I'd add the so-called "black handers" etc. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
possibly the sentence about his marriage should be woven into the last section on his legacy. It sticks out like a sore thumb where it is.
I'm going with precedent here: in every other military bio I've done, I put the marriage/children detail in its chronological place. I won't argue that sometimes it does 'stick out' a bit, however it seems to be the accepted way.... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There would be no article on Wackett himself if we were all concerned about precedent. ;) Think of all the precedents he broke! Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't fault you on that score...! I think chronological personal life snippets fit in reasonably well if they're at the beginning or end of paragraphs, as here. I know some bios put in a separate Personal Life section for all that but personally I think those 'stick out' - the only time I ever resorted to that was when I had no date for the subject's marriage, only the fact that he was married and had children. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is well-researched and well-written. It explains the context of Wackett's career (in various wars, introduction of jets, etc.), yet remains focused on the subject. I will leave it to others to determine image and MoS compliance. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments Refs, dabs, links all fine. RB88 (T) 12:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - meets FA criteria. Dincher (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review:
File:ECWackett1958.jpg states it is from "c. 1958". That isn't really good enough, as if it was 1959, it's still copyrighted through the end of this year in Australia. Additionally, it is probably still copyrighted in the USA as well.
The book from which the photo is sourced gives the date of c. 1958, so unless you want to challenge that source, I think it's reasonable to accept it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All images hosted on Wikimedia websites must be free for use in the USA, because that's where the sites are hosted and the WMF is incorporated. Oppose pending resolution of these. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Stifle, could you give me an example of such an explanation? While you're at it, could you also explain why these pictures are suspect as far as US copyright is concerned but other pictures in Australian military articles—including ones you've reviewed recently such as in Henry Wells (general) and Joe Hewitt (RAAF officer)— are not? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The most usual information would be {{PD-US-1996}}, but I can't say for sure that it applies to these images. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I raised issues in the other FACs about image copyright where appropriate. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm still none the wiser about why File:JK0736ECWackett1953.jpg needs a US copyright statement but, for instance, File:JK0414Hewitt1952.jpg, which comes from a very similar and recently-promoted FA, does not. Has something changed in the past few weeks? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose asked for feedback on the images at WT:FAC. I agree with Stifle here. All images hosted on Commons must be PD in both the US and the host country - that is why the additional information is necessary. Nothing has changed recently and I see that Stifle did not raise the same issue with the previous article when he should have. I assume it is the kind of oversight we all make, especially when we do a lot of reviews. :) Awadewit (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that, in the nine FACs I have been through, I have never once been asked to provide a rational on a file's entry on how/why it is not copyrighted in the USA, particularly for pre-1945 images—such as two of the above—which includes image reviews from multiple users, including Stifle, and I'm sure Ian could say the same. Would it just be easier if Ian moved the post-1945 images to en.Wiki? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is best to host the images on Commons so that users on all 250+ projects can use them, so, no, moving them to en.wiki is not ideal. Images that are hosted on en.wiki can only be used on en.wiki. Awadewit (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for your comment, Bryce, en.wiki came to my mind too. Awadewit, I agree Commons is the ideal, which is why I put these images there in the first place, given I'd never encountered any issues previously with US copyright concerns. I believe this article is more worthwhile with the photos than without, so can you suggest a better alternative to migrating the post-war images to en.wiki, given it appears that only the two pre-1946 images appear to comply with {{PD-US-1996}}? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually images uploaded locally here must still be free to use in the USA, where the site is hosted; our policies don't require them to also be free in their home countries. So migrating the images that are PD in Australia but not in the USA to enwiki won't save them. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not, but a migration to en.wiki and a fair use rational might be the best alternative. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, File:JK0414Hewitt1952.jpg was an oversight and I've now nominated it for deletion as it is copyrighted through 2047 in the USA. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chiming in as another image reviewer, I have to say that I agree with what Stifle said at 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC). NW(Talk) 00:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the Australian Government, the copyright owner, is publicly displaying the image online labelled "Copyright expired - public domain" I can't see them suing anybody for any copyright violation anywhere... this discussion seems to say that under US law, these images may still be under copyright, should the owner care to assert their rights in the US. In this case the owner appears to have renounced any such rights globally, in which case this discussion appears purely academic. ??? Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to where it says the owner has renounced the rights globally? Stifle (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the image says 'Copyright expired' not once but twice, surely that would be enough to use the photo in some capacity? Skinny87 (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Skinny. At this point I think we have to confirm the categories of image here, and I'd appreciate it if our image experts could work with me on this rather than tarring every picture with the same brush, as seems to have occurred in the first instance. It'd also be great if we could hear more in the way of potential solutions to the image concerns, as at least four are of particular interest to me, namely the portrait at the top plus one image each illustrating the early, WWII and post-war phases of his career, and if the issues raised are legit then I'm prepared to take all necessary action to ensure those concerns are overcome. As I see it, there are 3 types of image here:
Those satisfying PD-Australia and PD-US-1996 by virtue of being taken before 1946, i.e. File:P01817.004SeaGullA9-5.jpg and File:An004232JonesECWackettBurnett1941.jpg. I can't agree with Stifle that these need a special explanation of why they're out of copyright in the US, otherwise every single PD-Australia image would need the same thing. Such a change to previous practice can hardly be passed off as a case of "it's always been this way".
Those satisfying PD-Australia but not, on the surface, PD-US-1996, because they were taken after 1946, i.e. File:JK0736ECWackett1953.jpg and File:JK0744ECWackett1953.jpg. Here I'm with Rod and Skinny that the AWM's positive assertion that they are out of copyright (in other words the AWM is proactively placing them in the public domain, not simply leaving it to us to make that determination because of their age) also negates any US copyright concerns. The AWM's message is not "public domain - but only in Australia", it's plain and simple "public domain". The two pre-1946 images also bear this assertion but it's on these post-1946 images that it becomes important.
That satisfying PD-Australia but not PD-US-1996, i.e. File:ECWackett1958.jpg, because there is no positive assertion of being in the public domain since it comes from a book rather than the AWM, and is credited to the RAAF. I think every bio, particularly a featured article, should have a good quality portrait of its subject, and this is the only one I've located of Ellis Wackett. So far we've had suggestions that we could get round the Commons issue by hosting on en.wiki, or by asserting fair use given the lack of other portraits (let alone ones that illustrate so well why he was nicknamed "Punch"). Again I ask Awadewit and colleagues, please suggest what can get us around the issue so this article has a decent portrait of its subject? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure when I said that images taken before 1946 need "a special explanation of why they're out of copyright in the US", and if I did, I don't think I agree with myself (-:. An explanation, yes, and that would normally take the form of the template {{PD-US-1996}}.
If the source website says something to the effect of "public domain" or "copyright released", I would take that as sufficient to tag the images {{PD-release}}.
If there is no free image which covers a certain purpose, there may be a case for a fair use rationale. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the images in question to see what can be said about their status.
File:An004232JonesECWackettBurnett1941.jpg was taken by/for the Argus newspaper. Photographs taken before 1 May 1969 in Australia had a 50-year copyright term from the end of the year in which they were taken. As such, this had its Australian copyright expire at the end of 1991 and the URAA did not affect it. Therefore, it is public domain in the USA and I have tagged it accordingly.
I've struck my opposition on the good-faith assumption that the latter image will be either removed or retagged as fair use. However, most of these issues could, and probably should, have been resolved before coming to FAC (-: Stifle (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming to the party, Stifle - that's appreciated. I'll look into a fair-use rationale for the 1958 portrait. On your last point, I agree wholeheartedly that images should be properly tagged before FAC, but again this was the first time the US copyright issue had come up, even for someone who averages around one FAC per month... ;-) Re. the 1941 picture, I'd inadvertently lumped that with the AWM images when in fact that wasn't the source but it is, as you say, okay in the US for other reasons. On the three AWM pictures you've tagged, the only thing that confuses me is the slightly different PD parameter you've added for the two 1953 images as opposed to the Seagull one. The last-mentioned makes more sense to me, since the one on the 1953 images comes out as "I, the copyright holder...", which seems out of place - should it not be the same for all three? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that last bit; Commons and enwp templates aren't fully consistent. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what's happening here with WP:MOSNUM; most numbers are digits, while ages are spelled out. Pls review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was consistent in that it 'worded' numbers under a hundred, and I believe the MOS allows some discretion here, which I generally exercise to offer some relief from the plethora of other numbers. However I'm not that fussed if it's all still consistent, as you've made it in your ce, Sandy. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK ... I'm not fussed either, as long as it was consistent; revert me if you prefer! By the way, promoted it already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Dave (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is easily one of the more notable highways in the U.S., due to the engineering required to build it. This has been a work in progress for over 2 years, hopefully it is ready now. Dave (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to FAC director: My work schedule has changed, this change will have a severe impact on my free time (and wiki-time). I knew this was coming, but I did not expect this nomination still be open when the change was to happen. I will attempt to resolve the issues when I can. I have also asked others to assist. I ask for patience; however, I understand if you need to close the nomination due to unresolved concerns. Dave (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (unfortunately I don't think I'll have time to do a full review) -
In this canyon I-70 reaches the western terminus of U.S. Highway 24 which meanders through the Rockies before rejoining I-70. - U.S. Route?
U.S. Highway seems to be the vernacular used on other Colorado road articles. I just chose to be consistent rather than fight it.
This portion features grade warning signs with unusual phrasings, such as "Trucks: Don't be fooled", "Truckers, you are not down yet" and "Are your brakes adjusted and cool?"[1] - How does source 1 source this? (I could be missing something).
The source is a menu to select a variety of data reports for this highway. Unfortunately, I can't link to the outputs of each of the reports used, or I would do so. The relevant report is the "Structure List" report, which lists the MP, inventory designation, and pictures of the text for of most of these signs. What the source doesn't support is the characterization of "unusual". I asked a couple of people if they thought that word was a valid description; so far all have said yes. However, I'm more than happy to remove the word unusual should people here think that's not a fair summary.
It was mainly the signs I was concerned about. --Rschen7754 (TC) 06:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exit list - East end of US 50 Overlap - overlap should not be capitalized.
Whoops, thanks for catching that.
former Port of Entry - former should be capitalized; should port of entry be? Not sure.
I'm pretty sure it's not a proper noun. I'm not sure what I was thinking. Thanks.
Is there a reason for the unusual source citation at the bottom of the exit list?
I've gotten mixed feedback on that. some people tell me that's what all tables should do, others hate it. I have no strong feelings one way or the other. I'm willing to go with whatever.
Thanks for the review. Let me know if my responses do not resolve your concerns.Dave (talk) 06:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. To Sandy / Karanacs: I do not oppose this nomination; the only reason I am not supporting is because I don't think I have time to read the article, and it would not be fair for me to support without reading through it. --Rschen7754 (TC) 06:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I performed a detailed review during this article's WP:USRD A-Class Review, and believe it was elevated greatly in that process. I have been watching the article since then and have not found any additional concerns since its promotion to A-Class. The subject matter is very interesting from a road/engineering perspective, and it is a well-written, high-quality work. Thus, I feel the article meets the qualifications of FA status. --LJ (talk) 08:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing the tedious checks that need to be done.Dave (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I have some concerns before I can support this for FA:
"the Rockies" sounds colloquial.
My intent was to alternate wordings between Rockies and Rocky Mountains to avoid repetition. Please consider this, and advise if you agree or not that were I to replace all instances of Rockies with Rocky Mountains if the article would sound repetitive.
On second thought, I suppose I could alternate between Rocky Mountains and just mountains, but this might be too vague. Same with the Eisenhower Tunnel below. Thoughts? Dave (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If "the Rockies" is a commonly used official term to describe the mountains, then it would be okay. "The Rockies" may work since it is a commonly used term. Dough4872 (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the Rockies" doesn't sound any more colloquial than "The Rockies". It would be prudent to establish whether "the" should be capitalized or not in reference to this common name. Rocky Mountains seems to indicate "the" is not part of the common form. If we take that as official, the MOS states that "the" should remain lower case. If "the" is indeed part of the common name, it should be capitalized. --LJ (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming I did the search right, all I currently have is "the Rockies". So should we get an authoritative voice saying it should be "The Rockies" a simple search and replace should do it.Dave (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"This tunnel is both the longest mountain tunnel and the highest point along the Interstate Highway System." in what? the U.S.? North America? the world?
In the Interstate Highway System. I've asked a few others, and so far all have said this sentence is clear. Once somebody from outside the U.S. Roads wikiproject chimes in, I'll ask their opinion.
I also think this is clear, with the term "both" linking 'the tunnel' and 'the highest point' to "the Interstate Highway System". However, changing "is" to either "includes" or "comprises", as well as changing "along" to "on" might better connect the two thoughts. --LJ (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. Dave (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the Eisenhower" also sounds colloquial.
Same reasoning as above with the Rockies.
In this case, I would suggest adding "Tunnel" after "Eisenhower" as the tunnel is likely not officially referred to as "the Eisenhower". Dough4872 (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
"however, internationally it has been exceed by more recent tunnels, such as the Fenghuoshan Tunnel", it may be helpful to indicate that this is a railroad tunnel in China. Also, what is the highest vehicular tunnel in the world?
The Fenghoushan tunnel currently (vehicles include rail). If you mean "automotive tunnel", AFAIK it's still the Eisenhower, but I don't have a source to back that up. I had mentioned the tunnel was in China in a earlier version. I'm not sure why I took it out. I'll play with the wording with the next round of fixes.
It would help if you could clearly indicate the Eisenhower Tunnel is the longest automotive tunnel, try looking for a source. Dough4872 (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked, most sources still say the Eisenhower is the highest tunnel in the world. The Fengoushan tunnel is a recent development, and most sources have not updated to reflect this fact. As such I have no doubt the sources will exist, but currently they are dated. Dave (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The Eisenhower Tunnel is also the longest mountain tunnel". Again, in what?
This is a repeat of point number 2.
I still feel the Great Plains section of the Route description needs some more information. It comprises a significant part of the route in Colorado but is only described in brief detail.
A couple of people have opined this during peer reviews, etc. The problem is, I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel to get what is there. I'm surprised nobody here has complained about trivial information in this section. I'll scrape some more; but frankly, the sources just aren't there for this section. Even according to CDOT, they spent hundreds of millions of dollars to build the freeway over the Rocky Mountains. The other half, just kinda appeared one day. =-)
"Taylor state road"? Is that what the capitalization should be or is it a colloquial term?
I've got an idea for an improvement. Please advise if this is better. For the record, Rockies is no more colloquial than "Jersey". =-)
I would suggest saying in parentheses the Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project will complete the route. By the way, Central Jersey (along with North Jersey and South Jersey) are commonly used terms in the media to describe these parts of New Jersey. Dough4872 (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked some more. To be honest, I'm not a fan of parenthesis, and normally try to avoid them. However, I've tried something else that may work, please advise.Dave (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current revision works, as any parenthetical mention of the I-95 project is not extremely relevant to this article. The current revision also addresses the next point. --LJ (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that depends on how literal you want to define gap. Those are the only to remaining gaps, as defined as unconstructed pieces. I'll clarify.
Also, the list article you mention does support this, once you filter out all of the freeways that were not included in the 1956 plan.
The sentence "As one conservationist lamented, I-70 "changed rural Colorado into non-rural Colorado"" sounds like a weasel words.
This is a direct quote. If you don't like it, I can remove. However, I do think it is a good concluding statement. If you don't mind, I'd prefer to get more opinions on this.
This quote works well as a concluding statement to the Legacy section. Perhaps there might be a slightly better way to state it? I'd look at it in the original source for ideas, but don't feel like searching through 12 PDF chapters to find it right now... --LJ (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason for the source row in the Exit list? Dough4872 (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, most people I've asked outside of the roadgeek community have stated they prefer this formatting. I recognize most of the USRD project hates it. IMO we should go with what the at-large community thinks.
This method has a more professional appearance than the way USRD cites things in the header, so it doesn't bother me too much. Perhaps the shading of this cell should be changed to match the header row, so that it is not viewed as a row of the table (this shouldn't conflict with the "no colors" consensus at USRD, since it wouldn't be considered data within the table). --LJ (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. I would prefer to get additional feedback regarding some of these requested changes.Dave (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some replies above. Dough4872 (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided comments above regarding some points discussed in this review. --LJ (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - My issues have been addressed. However, I would still prefer if you could eventually find a source for point 4. Dough4872 (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks.Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.Eubulides (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have started on this. As I am just now learning about this guideline, and have no practice. I request a review from someone with more experience, to ensure I've done this right.Dave (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; what you've done so far is quite good. The few problems I see are:
I found a couple of words that cannot be immediately verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image, and need to be removed or reworded. These are the "south" in "south canyon wall", and the "car" in "A car is about to pass under a traffic signal" (isn't that an SUV in view?).
A minor grammar problem: "A highway near the top of a ridge, on either side ..." surely that should be ". On" rather than ", on" with a period at the end of the next sentence too.
Just as a heads-up, the highway shields are all purely decorative as they merely repeat adjacent text, so they do not need alt text and instead should be marked with "|link=" as per WP:ALT #When to specify. The one possible exception is the lead shield at the top of the infobox, where you may prefer alt text. You can see an example of all this in Template:Infobox road/doc #Example. The map in the lead infobox will need alt text, though; use the "map_alt=" parameter.Eubulides (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What would you suggest for alt text for the map? (WP:ALT is news to us at USRD, so we're trying to figure out how to update the standards / articles). Also, the example on {{infobox road}} is very atypical of most implementations; look at the code for {{infobox road}} and {{jct}} in Interstate 70 in Colorado. I'm not saying that we're not open to compliance with WP:ALT; it's just going to take some time to figure out how to do this. --Rschen7754 (TC) 03:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An update: I believe the only things not in compliance on this particular article are the large shield at the top and the map, both in the infobox. --Rschen7754 (TC) 07:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found 3 images other than that, all generated from templates, which I fixed with this edit and this edit. As I wrote in WT:USRD #WP:ALT it seems that the simplest thing may be to generate the alt text automatically for the large shield at the top. For the map, I suggest something like "I-70 runs generally east-west through Colorado, and intersects a north-south Interstate at a spot a bit northeast of the state's center, from which spot a third Interstate heads northeast." Eubulides (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(od) Thanks for checking. I have made your requested changes. All images now have alt text except for the I-70 shield in the infobox. This will be generated at the infobox level, so no changes will be required to this article. This will be implemented shortly. The reason why this isn't done yet, is this template is used in over 10,000 articles for highways all over the world. There are a lot of scenarios to check to ensure nothing gets broken. However, this has been discussed on several talk pages and the IRC forum. Everybody (so far) is supporting the change, just need to make sure it's done right.Dave (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And done, if I would have waited 10 minutes before posting that. =-) Dave (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all that work. I tweaked the map alt text, which was simply "Map of Colorado" and not that useful, and the resulting alt text looks good to me. Eubulides (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
RD - "US 6 rejoins the path of I-70 east of Grand Junction; US 50, however departs on a course towards Pueblo." - comma after however
"I-70 enters the Denver metropolitan area, part of a larger urban area called the Front Range, as this is where the Rocky Mountains meets the Great Plains." - run-on?
"The freeway meets Interstate 25 in an interchange frequently called the Mousetrap." - does this need to be sourced?
Does this need to be sourced? --Rschen7754 (TC) 21:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added source, sorry about that. Dave (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I-70 has one official branch in Colorado, Interstate 270 which connects the interstate with the Denver–Boulder Turnpike." - comma after 270
"I-70 enters Kansas near Burlington. Burlington is a small community known for having one of the oldest carousels in the United States." - a bit choppy
I'll stop there for now; getting a bit late. --Rschen7754 (TC) 09:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got 'em, Thanks. Dave (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Early history - for a loop? Can you explain?
I'll try, but first, can you explain? I don't understand your concern.
What do you mean by "loop" - a loop route? Someone might not understand. --Rschen7754 (TC) 03:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, better now? Dave (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... I'm not sure if "loop route" would be more clear or just be redundant, but it's a suggestion. --Rschen7754 (TC) 05:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IH planning - I think I understand the premise made in the last paragraph, but the connection between UT's concerns and the recognition for engineering marvels could be made stronger.
This paragraph is one of the more contentious paragraphs in the article. It changed dramatically during the A class review, to the point I debated removing it entirely. However, I have an idea. It will take some time, as I need to re-find a source I previously discarded. I'll advise when I've found it.
I guess my concern is that it's logically a bit hard to follow. --Rschen7754 (TC) 03:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to remove the paragraph. Your concerns echo what some people said during the A class review. To establish the connection requires taking the article on several tangents, and it really isn't that important. Dave (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eisenhower Tunnel - two-way versus two way?
You'd think I'd learned my lesson on that one by now, but no. =-) Thank you.
After 18 months on the job; however, she had still not entered the tunnel. - comma, not semicolon
I'm going to ask for another opinion, as another review opined semicolon. Two out of three votes should decide it =-)
"After 18 months on the job" is a dependent clause and needs to have an independent clause to go with it to make a complete thought. In order to use a semicolon, the stuff at the front has to be an independent clause. --Rschen7754 (TC) 03:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dope! No clue what I was thinking.
Interesting read; should be a support once these issues are fixed.
Thanks. I've fixed 1, requested more information on 1 and need to do some research before addressing 2 of your concerns. Please advise if you have more.Dave (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got 'em. Dave (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Concerns have mostly been addressed. --Rschen7754 (TC) 05:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, 1c. I looked at the sourcing of a sample section (Legacy) and unfortunately uncovered several inconsistencies, broken links, and improper citations. Sourcing of this article needs to be scrutinized; unfortunately it has been called into question in the past and I'm not certain that even those sample items were addressed.
For the record, the above link to a section of my RfA is referring to a different article. Please see the section of my RfA titled "Who is Falsifying". In that section, the tables were turned. I was largely vindicated, and it was the accuser who was accused of falsification. If you're going to cite my RfA, please read the whole thing, not just the first 3 paragraphs.Dave (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dave, I did read the whole thing, then and now. I'm not saying I agreed with all of OR's points; I'm just saying the whole situation gave me pause when I saw it here for FA. --Andy Walsh(talk) 01:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Striking my 1c opposition after looking at more of the sources. --Andy Walsh(talk) 16:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"When first approved, the extension of I-70 from Denver to Cove Fort was criticized as a 'road to nowhere'" As written, gives the impression that this was the sentiment of the general public. Looking at the source, not so. The source says "Salt Lake City newspapers decried"; as such, the source is not accurately represented.
The FWHA source also covers this, albeit the quote isn't as direct as in the SLC newspaper quote. I can list both sources if you'd prefer.Dave (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried both options (specifying the source is referring to SLC area newspapers) and making it more generic so I could use the FWHA source. I think of the two, it sounds better sticking to the quote. So I fixed it that way. Thanks for pointing that out. Dave (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand how quoting two DoT "employees" is sufficient to give readers insight into the highway's legacy. I would advise getting more specific about their roles in the DoT to give people context.
Richard Weingroff is well known within the roadgeek community. He has authored dozens of articles in several FWHA publications. He has been credited differently on them. Although this specific article his title is not credited, here are examples of others: Information Liaison specialist, office of infrastructure. Dave (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it requires that much explanation here at FAC, what are we doing in the article for the reader? Provide context and background information, preferably. --Andy Walsh(talk) 01:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As to the other part of your concerns. The paragraph consists of more than just quotes from two employees. That is what starts the section, but it continues into economic impacts. However, if you still feel that is inappropriate, let's discuss.Dave (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One, for example, appears to be a blogger or similar. The Rambler? His comment about how people ask him "did we think Baltimoreans were so desperate to get to Cove Fort" seems rather flippant and possibly made up for the purposes of the Rambler column. I don't think it belongs in our article.
See above. The FWHA does not offer a public blog, that I am aware of. This source is part of a "highway history" series of articles, that includes similar articles on other cross-country highways. For others in the series, see [64] Another source used in this article was authored by Weingroff as part of the 50th anniversary of the Interstate Highway system. Again is one in a series of articles about the subject. Many of his articles are authored as simply "The Rambler" other are authored using his name. I do not know why, but some articles imply it is a running joke within the U.S. Department of Transportation.Dave (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In another, you refer to Karen Stufflebeam Row as a "department employee", whereas much more specific information is available. She is a contributor to the Public Roads publication.
I can list her specific role if you feel it is important. However, wouldn't' that be a tangential detail? Please advise. Dave (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think understanding her role is important to understanding why anything she says is important. "Department employee" could be a janitor for all we know. --Andy Walsh(talk) 01:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes Janitor, a most under-appreciated yet utterly necessary part of modern civilization. Fair enough, if credentials rule, the easiest fix would be to change the word employee to a more specific role. I'll play around with it.Dave (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, that source is listed incorrectly in your References. You cite it as a web page and only list one author. There are three authors, and it is an article from a printed magazine that has a volume, issue, and so on.
Which reference? I'll be more than happy to fix anything that isn't up to snuff.Dave (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, found it. Thanks for finding that. I had co-authors instead of coauthors in the template parameters. That's why the co-authors were not displaying. Amazing that wasn't caught until now. Thank you. Dave (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The Eisenhower Tunnel alone is credited with saving up to an hour from the drive across the state." The citation goes to a launch page for several chapter-long document. Where in the document is the corresponding fact? If it's in the PDF, don't you need to provide the PDF as the source, not the launch page?
It is in the PDF. I'm not aware of any policy about launch pages being inappropriate. If there is please advise and I'll fix. I chose the launch page as it has multiple viewing options for the document, as a large file, or several smaller files.
Hm, I can see that, but the problem is I went to check the source and it wasn't immediately apparent where to go. Couldn't you just link to the PDF in References? --Andy Walsh(talk) 01:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could, but doing that would force someone with a slow internet connection to download a gigantic file. By linking to the menu page, everybody's needs can be accommodated with an additional mouse click. Dave (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the PDF does not work.. I cannot verify any of the things sourced to that document.
Works now. Please advise if you have any additional concerns. Dave (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being the one who initially called many of the sourcing issues of the article into question, I agree with Laser brain that the problems have not yet been addressed. As per my standard, I will not "oppose" over sourcing concerns, although I feel that such must be remedied in full before the article can be promoted. It seems that many of the passages have little to do with the article or have reliability problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your concerns were with a different article. Three other people also checked the sources with that article and concluded that the accusations made against me of falsification and plagiarism were exaggerated at best. Issues were found, yes, but they were minor, not major.Dave (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dave, just to be clear, I know OR to be thoughtful and to act in good faith, so I will feel better about this article once I have checked a majority of the sources. I will do very shortly. I'm not opposing based on his earlier comments, only on my own findings. --Andy Walsh(talk) 01:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would hardly call screaming plagiarism, with nothing to back it up, good faith. But that's for another talk page. Bringing this back to topic, Ottava's review was for a different article. His review was for Interstate 70 in Utah, the article under review here is Interstate 70 in Colorado. Dave (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, am I seriously that dense? I need to lay off the Sterno. I sincerely apologize for the mix-up.--Andy Walsh(talk) 02:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dave, this may be a bit of American English that looks wrong in in English. But "US 6/50 retain their original routes through downtown." Is that an acceptable way to abbreviate US 6 and US 50, or does that denote a merged road and should read "US 6/50 retains its original route through downtown".ϢereSpielChequers 00:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right; I think I did that wrong. They enter Grand Junction as a merged route, but leave the city as separate routes. Can you give me a suggestion? Thanks for bringing that up.Dave (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I played with it a couple of ways. Currently I have it with the / replaced with "and". Please advise if you think that's better. Dave (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, no great detail is needed as they are not the article subject.
In the sentence "Through Glenwood Canyon, I-70 is not compliant with Interstate Highway standards for curvature and shoulder width." curvature is simply word linked, but if possible should be linked to something that details how bendy US Interstates should be. Also I'd suggest that this be rephrased more along the lines of "In the Glenwood Canyon section, I-70 [partially lacks or has no] shoulders, and is bendier than would normally be allowed by Interstate Highway standards with curves as tight as ******. ϢereSpielChequers 13:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw stuff about shoulders and camber in there but I couldn't see anything about curvature in terms of how bendy the road is, not even a ban on hairpin bends on Interstates. Is it possible that the road is windier than the norm but there is no standard, or is it simply that our article omits that particular standard? ϢereSpielChequers 12:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interstate highways are supposed to be designed for 75 MPH driving speeds. The specification that documents this, as well as the shoulder widths is [65]. Unfortunately, worldcat does not show any library that has a copy in a city I'll be likely to visit soon. So I'll strike for now. I do know some of our wikipedian roadgeeks have purchased this standard. As soon as I can get the page numbers, I'll re-add.Dave (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Several parts of the approach to the pass feature large fences that prevent wildlife from crossing the freeway and direct the animals to one of several underpasses. At least one overpass is located along a natural migratory path". One of several underpasses is an overpass? should that be "Several parts of the approach to the pass feature large fences that prevent wildlife from crossing the freeway and direct the animals to one of several underpasses and overpasses. At least one overpass is located along a natural migratory path". (checked with source and changed to underpass) ϢereSpielChequers 13:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"View from Loveland Pass, showing both a hairpin turn along the US 6 alignment, and the straighter I-70" You need to zoom to see the roads, and unless I'm missing something it shows a curving road and a straight one. I'm not sure whether the photo should be blown up and cropped or not, I guess its a matter of aesthetics v Encyclopaedic value. Also I couldn't see a hairpin bend in that photo, (I'm assuming the definition of a hairpin bend is the same in American English as you have linked to the definition that I understand, but I understand they are rare in the US). The hairpin bend is on the right side of the photo, vertically about midway. There is also a second one
As far as I know we use the same definition. The hairpin turn is on the right side of the photo, about midway. There is also a second hairpin turn, not directly visible, but deducible from where US disappears descending from the previously mentioned hairpin turn and re-appears in the bottom left corner of the photo. If it helps, what the photo is depicting is visible here: [66], with the hairpin bend to the left of "Mt. Sniktau" visible in the photo.
OK I see it now. Despite the loss of aesthetics I think I'd suggest a closeup that shows this more clearly. But others may have a different view. ϢereSpielChequers 12:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Information that seems to be underrepresented or missing from the article includes:
Who paid for the I70 and how much
This is a complicated question, as the freeway was built in segments over a 40+ year span. I have provided costs for the Glenwood Canyon piece, and do have the information for a few other pieces, but not for the entire length. Would adding costs for the other pieces that I know be sufficient?Dave (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added construction costs and funding source data for the Eisenhower Tunnel. Dave (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is its the capacity (lanes and/or maximum projected vehicles per day) and typical traffic flow
I can easily provide AADT data the next time I'm on wiki. Unfortunately read my note above. Dave (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AADT data added Dave (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accident statistics and any notable incidents
Several of the sources used mention an accident in the 1980's where a truck hauling missiles overturned at the Mousetrap, that forced a partial evacuation of downtown Denver. However, I was planning to include this in the article for the Mousetrap, please advise. (That article already has a brief, un-sourced mention).
I see no harm in mentioning it in both. ϢereSpielChequers 12:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a paragraph about the incident in the "Legacy" section of this article. As I am a notoriously crappy writer that requires about 8 tries to get things right, would you mind giving this paragraph a once over, and reporting anything you find? Thanks in advance. Dave (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speed limits (I'm assuming most of it is at whatever the US national limit is, but the stretch with severe grade warnings and the bendy bit may be lower).
Unfortunately, I haven't found a reliable source for this yet. From personal experience I can tell you that through the tunnels and Glenwood canyon, the speed limits are displayed on the variable message signs and adjust per conditions.Dave (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any extreme weather closures - I'm assuming that high in the Rockies gets a fair bit of snow, does this ever close the road and if not how do they prevent this.
Would your sources cover any of that? ϢereSpielChequers 13:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall coming across any, but I'll double check. I agree, there has to be at least one surprise blizzard that caught the state off guard =-). Dave (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking through your sources for the areas I considered missing. Obviously we can't add what we can't source, but I think that gives some pointers as to some aspects worth incorporating. Featured Articles only need to be as comprehensive as the source material allows. ϢereSpielChequers 12:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Content concerns - Excuse the above statement, as it mixed up two articles. I took a close look and found concerns. To start off, the left image under "Clear Creek" is an MoS violation - WP:ACCESS.
Please clarify, I don't see the violation.Dave (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ACCESS describes how left hand images directly under a third level header can disrupt the text, making it harder for those with non-standard viewers to read the text. So, images are not supposed to be on the left in such situations. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are mistaken, the word "left" does not appear anywhere on the WP:ACCESS page. Please advise. Dave (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policy is the 7th bullet at MOS:IMAGES. --LJ (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, got it, thank you. Dave (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. "This portion has been recognized by both the federal and state departments of transportation as an engineering marvel and one of the most scenic features of the Interstate Highway System" Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Source - This link says that it was hailed as a marvel. At no time does it say that the state of Colorado hail it as a marvel. The link also does not verify that the state called it "one of the most scenic features". There is no evidence for the state department doing any of the above claim. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The final link of I-70 through Glenwood Canyon has been hailed as an engineering marvel". The federal source is the one making the superlative claims. The state source does mention it is a scenic drive (i.e. "..spectacular Glenwood Canyon , with its cliffs towering a maximum of 2,000 feet above the Colorado River") but does not mention the superlatives. I'll tweak this later. Unfortunately I have to run (see above). However, if you can do it, I'd be grateful. Dave (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you separate the two more - use the explanation you have above. As of right now, it seems that the State and Fed both say both items. Not a big deal, but it was something I didn't pick up on. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, better?
2. "Through Glenwood Canyon, I-70 is not compliant with Interstate Highway standards for curvature and shoulder width. To minimize these hazards, a command center staffed with Colorado State Patrol officers and tow trucks on standby monitors cameras along the tunnels and viaducts in the canyon" Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Source - This does not seem to say any of the above. I could not find "complaint", "curvature", or "Interstate Highway standards". The word "standards" never appears. I could not find the term "state police" appears once and "state patrol" never. If anything, these would be CDOT employees, which are not "state patrol officers" (at most, you could say "transit cop", but there is no evidence that these are officers to even allow for that). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term used in the source is "emergency vehicles". There are state troopers on-call, as my DMV records will attest (does that count as a reliable source? =-) ) I will attempt to find a more specific source. In the interim, I'd be ok with changing state police to emergency vehicles. The source does support that it is not built to interstate highway standards, but that requires knowing that Interstate highways standards call for a design speed of 75 MPH, with a few exceptions allowed. This is common knowledge for most people with even a basic understanding of US transportation infrastructure. Point is duly noted, that this should be clarified for people who don't. Dave (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not notice that, and emergency vehicle would count, but I would suggest possibly using the term above as you offer, or you could break it down to all three (as it would also include fire and ambulance, which would give you -three- aspects that are interesting instead of just one). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the specification I need: [67]. No library in my neck of the woods has this, so I can get the exact wording. In the interim wording I have removed the claim of violation of standards.Dave (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Article - This portion features grade warning signs with unusual phrasings, such as "Trucks: Don't be fooled", "Truckers, you are not down yet" and "Are your brakes adjusted and cool?" Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. The source is a database and I could not find the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is discussed above, in Rschen7754's review. Please see my response there. Dave (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Much of the information, upon looking at the source, in "Earlier routes" is off topic. It deals with history of the highway system as a whole and provides little evidences to a direct connection to I 70. Instead, the history deals with other roads. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not off-topic. It is providing background for the next section discussing how I-70 came into being through Colorado, as it was not part of the original plans. Dave (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the highway was not part of the original plans, could you start off the section saying that very thing and then cite it? That way, the information that follows would explain what the original plans were, thus, being more blatantly connected to the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The content was there. However, your point is noted, I have re-arranged the content for (hopefully) better flow.Dave (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Article - "They later expressed concerns that the construction would drain resources from completing Interstate Highways they deemed to have a higher priority." Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Source - The closest thing I could find in the source is this "(3) the parallel Interstate across Wyoming in the U.S. 30 corridor (future I-80) was too close," which is very different than what the article suggests. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the section (of the source) titled "Utah's I-70, an Engineering Marvel". That is the section I was attempting to summarize. Dave (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are many other concerns, but others have expressed quite a bit so I will let them fill in the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly addressed some, please see my note added to the top of the page. Dave (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some comments, which should be easy enough to address. As I said above, I only looked at sections others did not talk about or aspects others didn't. Overall, this page is much better than the others I reviewed of yours before. Minimal use of maps, strong use of historical texts, lots of notability without throwing in things that don't seem to logically fit, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles used similar sources; For example, the FWHA article was one of the primary sources for the history sections of both articles. As the Utah article was my first FA nomination, I would certainly hope this one is better. However, I think another part of the equation is the difference in your attitude between the two reviews. With that said, the feedback on this review was good, usable feedback, and for that I thank you.Dave (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Support
Hats off to the author for putting this together. Clearly a labor of love, packed as it is with so much detail. However, such rich detail needs matching clarity of exposition. This the article doesn't have yet. I have left detailed comments on the lead and the first few subsections on the article's talk page. Among other things there, I am urging the author to avoid both redundant or confusing information and "tourist brochure"-sounding formulations such as "X is the highest, the longest, the most awarded, ...." In my view, the article needs another week or two's work. Perhaps the author can work with an external copy editor to achieve these goals. I will then be among those cheering the author (and the article) on. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review. I like some of your suggested changes. I only have a minute now, but will try to incorporate your suggestions later. Some of your suggestions may require further discussion or a second opinion. For example, I agree that "engineering marvel" does sound more promotional than encyclopedic. However, this is the term used in the sources. The sources used are engineering in nature, not promotional. As such I would say the term is appropriate. Also, while the Eisenhower Tunnel section is written with a lot of superlatives, this is what gives the road notability. I agree it could be toned down a little.
Thanks for the review, Dave (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at some of the comments on the article talk page, and would agree with some of them. However, some of the superlative mentions or "tourist brochure" formulations are directly related to the notability of this highway. These statements are attributed to sources that are technical in nature, so it will be difficult to tone them down to sound less "touristy". --LJ (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler, thank you for the review and kind words. I have implemented many of your suggestions verbatim, some with some additional wording tweaks. I have not yet implemented a few of your suggestions, pending some second opinions and or additional research to provide the requested clarification. Thanks again. Dave (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many apologies, I forgot to check here! The text is much improved. Changing to support. Congratulations on writing a very informative article! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article again because I believe that previous problems regarding the article failing just short of the professional criteria in 1a has been addressed. The prose is refereshed to a professional version. Every concerns have been addressed and "4 Minutes" is, one the most complete articles on a song, I believe, here on Wikipedia. Hence it should be a featured article after gaining consensus from my fellow reviewers here at FAC. --Legolas(talk2me) 13:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text, dabs, sources reviewed in previous FAC; needs an image review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm happy to support this article's nomination for the second time. All of my concerns have been addressed and then some. Great article! Drewcifer (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments I supported the article's nomination at the last FAC, but upon taking a fresh look I feel the prose could be tightened up further. Alot of this is minor stuff that is easier to do myself, but feel free to keep a close eye on my edits and undo any that rub you the wrong way. However, I do have a few complaints about the Composition section. Namely, a few of the descriptors seem unsourced and a personal asessment presented as fact. For instance "Timbaland's characteristic bhangra beats". Who says they're characteristic? This sounds like an opinion to me. Take that word out and it reads much better. Also, "with a moderate tempo of 115 beats per minute." By whose standards is this "moderate"? Surely not to a drum and bass fan. Again, take the word out and you're cool. So I'd recommend a thorough scan through the entire article (there's stuff like this peppered throughout, not just in that one section). Also, I feel the article needs a sweep for WP:LQ. Also, there needs to be " " between stuff like "number three". Drewcifer (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
I have changed or removed the words which tended towards OR. --Legolas(talk2me) 03:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I also did for MoS too. Found quite a number of quotes in the reception section to be failing WP:LQ, changed them back. --Legolas(talk2me) 09:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I mentioned this in the previous FLC, but it's still a problem: the music video and Live performances sections go into too much detail, hence bordering slightly on fandom. For instance, the music video section goes into a section-for-section plot summary of the video. Is it really that important for our knowledge of the topic at hand that they end up in a supermarket at one point? Or that they dance on a conveyor belt? The performances section is a little less fandomy, but I think it too could be trimmed down.
I trimmed it as much as I could, but I am against further trimming down. For an artist like Madonna, the live performances and music videos have been the most analysed and reviewed. You cannot trim everything down to a bland version.
You're right: analysis is important, and Madonna is surely a worthier-than-most source for analysis. But the problem is I'm not seeing alot of analysis here; only summary. Take for example, the following passage: "Madonna is shown in a car yard, pushing a car into a home. She sings the main verse as she comes inside. The home owners are shown to be oblivious to her presence in their home." Where is the analysis? This reads like a book report to me rather than anything even vaguely encyclopedic. And to myself - a non-fan of Madonna - it reads as something only a fan would take the time to write. I could watch the video in about the same time it would take me to read about it. Take for example the FA Today (The Smashing Pumpkins song). There is a bit of a plot summary, but it is kept brief and sticks to only the main points of the video. (140 words to 250) And another, I Don't Remember does the same thing, also at around 140 words. I'm not saying delete it completely, but take out the stuff that doesn't tell us anything about the topic other than X happens then Y happens. Perhaps a good rule of thumb would be to keep things like set/environment shifts, important dance sequences/routines, and stuff having to do with the black wall thing. The wall thing seems to be the driving force of the video plot-wise and thematically, so it would be good to revolve the summary around that. Drewcifer (talk) 07:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do get your points which I believe are really valid. I have copy-edited as far as I could, removing parts which donot seem encyclopedic and parts which tend to be fancrufty. Please take look if what I did is correct. I tweaked the summary to revolve around the screen and the time counting down. --Legolas(talk2me) 07:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I could still go for less, but it's definitely more focused and the rewrites help as well. I can live with this compromise. Drewcifer (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the image captions need some work. If a caption isn't a complete sentence, don't use a period. Also, for the ones depicting live performances, the date and venue really aren't that important (at least to the topic at hand). Take that stuff out and make sure it's at least on the image's page. Lastly, many of the captions are just plain long. Try and trim them down a bit. Take out the extraneous stuff that's already obvious ("showing Madonna and Justin Timberlake kissing"), and leave the text for stuff that you're actually trying to point out with the image ("while the black background devours them, showing Timberlake's insides."). Drewcifer (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed down.
In the Credits and personnel section, each credit has a colon AND a dash. Stick with one; you don't need both. I think it's usually a dash. Drewcifer (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They should be en dashes. I've fixed these myself. — Σxplicit 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments
…the song features vocals by American singer–songwriter Justin Timberlake and Timbaland. Does "singer–songwriter" refer to just Timberlake, or does that include Timbaland? If so, it should be "singer–songwriters"; if not, specify who he is, as readers unfamiliar with Timbaland won't know who he is.
I'm pretty sure that the wikilinks to hip hop should be piped linked to hip hop music.
The unusual instrumentation includes… Unusual to who?
It became Madonna's thirteenth number-one single in the United Kingdom; the highest total for any female artist on the British charts. The semicolon seems a bit odd here. Perhaps it should be replaced with a comma or the word "and"?
It was initially referred to as "4 Minutes to Save the World", even by Madonna. Is there a reason for the text in bold to be included? — Σxplicit 01:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more minor issue: this reference no longer works. — Σxplicit 04:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with a working link from People magazine. --Legolas(talk2me) 05:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I would like to see a more descriptive caption for the music video screenshot, though. Since it's depicting the background devouring Timberlake, a little something should be added there. — Σxplicit 05:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll try to satisfy you both :( --Legolas(talk2me) 05:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm glad to see this article back at FAC and now at the FA level. We told 'ya. ;)
Initially known as "4 Minutes to Save the World", - This could be bolded, not necessary
Yes. Even I feel that it's not necessary to be bolded when its used in the middle of a sentence. --Legolas(talk2me) 11:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the line "Sometimes I feel what I need is a you intervention", Madonna explained "[y]eah, meaning, sometimes I think you need to save me."[3] - In composition. Add a comma after explained.
In Chart performance: "4 Minutes" was also a success in Australia and New Zealand. The song made its debut at number three on the Australian ARIA Singles Chart,[31] and ascended to the number-one position two weeks later, where it spent three consecutive weeks.[32] - where it stayed for
The song rose to the top of the chart on April 20, 2008, thus giving Madonna her thirteenth UK number-one single. - cite?
The citation is present in the after line, however, I still added one from BBC. That should do it. --Legolas(talk2me) 11:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It featured choreography by Jamie King, who worked on Madonna’s Confessions, Re-Invention and Drowned World tours as well as her video for the single "Sorry" (2006). Japanese hip-hop dancing duo Hamutsun serve also made an appearance in the video. - both sentences need cites
As per above, the citations are present in the enxt to next line, that of the Rolling Stone link, however I made them in-line. --Legolas(talk2me) 11:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! ceranthor 21:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the WP:MOSNUM boundary here on spelling out numbers vs. digits, and why is there small text in Track listings? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I followed the spelling out rule inorder to bring a consistency in the article. Also, in the tracklisting, the remixer's names or the version are generally made small, being not that notable as the main track. Another thing is, since we use
| class="col-break col-break-2" | , having the names (which can be quite long) in the normal font size may stretch the tables down. We have to keep in mind that not everybody watches with the same browser settings. Anything below the 800x600 resolution destroys the col-2 structure, if we magnify the names. --Legolas(talk2me) 03:25, 6 October 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 is a self-nom, something I've been working on slowly for a while. Others involved: thank you to LoopZilla for some of the images, to Crum375 and Eubulides for most of the alt text (though I bravely managed a couple myself!), and to Eubilides for his restoration work on Hogarth's engraving of Southwark Fair. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to FA delegates: I was finding the discussion hard to follow, so I've split it into sections, making them invisible as I deal with them, and I've added a "Fixes" section, listing my fixes as I make them. Feel free to undo if it's confusing. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 20:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slim, I've undone the collapsing of sections. These are highly discouraged, as they sometimes push the FAC archives over the maximum number of templates allowed on one page. Also, please note that it is not good form to collapse other people's comments on these pages; this is considered to be the same as striking comments, and on the rare occasions when we do allow it, the reviewer is expected to be the one to collapse their own, already addressed comments. I'll leave the sectioning for now, as this has become a pretty long page. Karanacs (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alt text is superb; thanks (I wrote very little of it). Just for next time, alt text doesn't have to be quite that fancy; see WP:ALT#Brevity. I just now added |link= to a couple of purely-decorative images in {{Marshalseaend}} and {{London history}}, and added alt text to one image that had been overlooked. Eubulides (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Many of the images in the article clash badly with the use of long quotations. Can you please decide which to keep and which to remove? Thanks. Also, why are so many of the images tagged with {{KeepLocal}}? I really see no reason to, and it will hinder the image review somewhat. NW(Talk) 02:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tag "KeepLocal" doesn't mean I don't want the image on the Commons, just that I'd like a local copy kept too. I do this because I've seen quite a few images disappear from the Commons in the past, with no explanation that I've been able to fathom. I also like to know if someone edits the description, and that means I need a local copy on my watchlist. How does that hinder the image review, NW? Also, can you give some examples of the images that are clashing with the highlighted quotes? Then I can look to see whether to remove the quotes or try to save them. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 19:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, all right. I suppose that's fine. The reason I dislike having a local copy is because changes on Commons should be able to synch up with changes on enwiki (I normally do a cleanup of the image page when doing my image review), and this means I will have to do double the amount of edits. No big deal, I suppose. I'll try to get to the image review within a few days. NW(Talk) 19:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a big deal, NW, and if it'll increase your workload, go ahead and upload and remove the local copies. My preference is only a slight one—based largely on knowing the rules here, and the Commons feeling like a foreign country. :) I don't want that to cause an increase in work for you. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 19:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that; it will be very helpful. I'll keep these images on my watchlist on Commons for you (which I usually check daily), so I'll tell you if anything comes up. Thanks for understanding, NW(Talk) 19:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, 1a. Oh nice: an enjoyable read and a highly professional standard of writing. Bit crowded at "Southwark", with a pic that I'd love to be larger (very detailed) and the highlighted quotation (forgotten the term for it). Can't see an easy solution, though.
"Ducking stool", "unnatural crimes"—ah, I can feel it in my blood.
The "London in 1300" map can be looked at only by clicking on it. I'm new to image management, but I guess this is OK: The thumbnail at least shows that it's a map, and if there were more room, it would be great as a centred, larger image (but there isn't more room).
Marshalea prison image: Just out of interest, why didn't you upload to the Commons? No mention on the file description page of the reason for the distorted shape of the photograph?
Nice touch: "How to find the prison remains" in the appendix part of the article. Tony(talk) 12:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind comments. :)
I've removed the hightlighted quote at Southwark and tweaked the writing, so it should look less crowded. [70]
I'll take a look at the London 1300 map and whether it could be enlarged.
Regarding the distorted shape, do you mean this image? It looks as though it was torn out of a book. I kept it that shape so you can see the little boy peeking of the doorway. I should upload these things to the Commons. I keep meaning to get involved there, but I've never done it before, and I imagine it involves the use of templates, so I keep putting it off. :) SlimVirgintalk|contribs 19:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I like the page and will be performing a major review later to ensure that everything can be handled correctly. The language looks excellent. However, there are formatting problems with some of the image placements and sandwiching of text. I'll try to think of possible solutions before I start listing them. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may have over-used the highlighted quotations. I do it because I like to see the text broken up. It makes it easier on the eye, in my view, and more informative for readers who scan. Please let me know which ones you see as problematic. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 19:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks, I enjoyed reading that. I've made a couple of minor tweaks and hope you like them. I'm not sure whether the strong room needs describing twice, and would be tempted to swap the photo slightly with perhaps the drawing of the prison or the infirmary as the lead picture. But others may have differing views on that.ϢereSpielChequers 14:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WSC, thank you, and yes, your changes were very helpful. I'll take a look at the Strong Room issue. As for the lead image, I did have the old prison in an earlier version, but I liked the idea of showing the remaining wall, because it's a photograph, it's real, and people can go and touch it. I felt that brings home that this wasn't all that long ago, and that in turn makes the radically different treatment of people all the more interesting. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 19:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I really like the new lead picture. ϢereSpielChequers 12:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fascinating story, hard to believe that's what British prisons (and justice) were like. Well written, well sourced, well illustrated. More than satisfies all the requirements of policy and guidelines. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brian
Comment: A very detailed article, evidently the result of much care. There is a problem, though, with the lead section, which is fine as a short intro to the topic, but is not the comprehensive overview as required by WP:LEAD. Bearing in mind that, per WP:LEAD, "the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject", it is hard to justify having a whole lead paragraph devoted to the Dickens story, while significant parts of the article are not covered by the lead at all. On a minor point, I think the Dickens debt should be written in the standard £sd format of £40.10s., rather than as "£40 and ten shillings" which soumds like two separate debts (and would never have been written thus in the £sd days). I will try to add more in the next few days, but in general this looks impressive. Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brian, I'm not a fan of the "relative emphasis" part of LEAD, though I do think this lead more or less satisfies it. Dickens is the only reason many people have heard of the Marshalsea, so I felt it appropriate to give him more than a passing mention. The rest of the story is pretty well covered: it existed for 500 years; it was mostly a debtors' jail; it was run privately; it was corrupt; people were treated very badly, and indeed many died, if they couldn't pay the fees; it became famous because of Dickens; when it was demolished; and what stands on the site now. What other key points do you feel belong in the lead?
I'm not sure about 40 pounds and ten shillings. You're probably right. I was just worried that no one would understand it, and I don't want to have to explain it in the lead. I'll give it some more thought. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 00:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More comments on the lead and various other matters.
Lead: Re. my comment above, while I don't suggest that the recommendations of WP:LEAD have to be adopted slavishly, they should be followed generally. In this case I think the lead should indicate that there were two Marshalseas; the history of the earlier Marshalsea, which occupies a lot of article space, should be better reflected in the lead – a couple of summary lines, perhaps. The Dickens paragraph could be expanded to make reference to other notabilities (Ben Jonson, at the very least), and there is no need to give the precise amount of the Dickens debt in the lead, as this is given (with updated value) in the text. On another point, I think "unnatural crimes" should be linked here, as well as when it appears in the text. If you don't link it here you will be tantalising the reader, another lead crime(!).
Hi Brian, I'll take a look at your points below later. I just wanted to say that I didn't mention Ben Jonson in the lead, or link to "unnatural crimes," precisely because of that part of LEAD that I don't like. I was constantly thinking, "better not mention X, or someone will say 'X is in the lead and there's not enough about it in the text.'" I had visions of being forced to write a section on buggery. :) SlimVirgintalk|contribs 18:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This does not really address my concerns about the lead. Why no mention of two Marshalseas? Why not a few more references to its history? Why not mention one or two of the historically interesting prisoners? No need for a section on buggery, but the content of the lead should broadly reflect that of th article. I don't think this version does so adequately. Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I note a slight movement towards meeting my lead concerns, but not much. We are obviously not going to agree on this, and since no one else seems particularly concerned, then I guess you win...this time. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quotations:
There are numerous verbatim quotations within the article, some of them rather awkwardly placed. It would help to differentiate them from the text if they were enclosed in boxes rather than using the dreaded cquote template. Also I think that at times the reliance on quotations is excessive; the "1729 Gaols Committee" section has three long quotes, one after the other. The Dickens quote near the end is 200+ words of prose. I don't believe that the article would suffer if the quotations were reduced, or replaced by paraphrase.
. The Gaols Committee quotes I'd like to keep to show the language they wrote in, and the Dickens quote because it's the last commentary that I was able to find on the Marshalsea while it was still in use. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 18:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what "Most of the pull quotes are gone" means, since I can see very little change in the number and length of quotes. The language the sources wrote in can be conveyed in short extracts rather than these lengthy paragraphs. Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I seem to be alone with this concern. It bothers me, but not it seems anyone else. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
**I am a bit concerned that a couple of the quotations, which appear to illiustrate conditions in the pre-reformed Marshalsea, are from a fictional work. How is this encyclopedic?
Because much of our information about the second Marshalsea comes from Dickens. The academic sources all cite him too. I can replace them with secondary sources citing Dickens, but that would only change the refs, not the information. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 18:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prose: I have only looked at the first few sections, but there are quite a few issues, happily mainly minor. I will try and pick up others later:-
Lead
***Second paragraph: The first "it" pronoun should be replaced by "the Marshalsea".
This one? "Run privately for profit, as were all prisons in England until the 19th century, it looked like an Oxbridge college and functioned largely as an extortion racket." SlimVirgintalk|contribs 18:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you agree or not, the subject of the first part of the sentence is Dickens's father, so "he" in the second part has to be defined.Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
***"...notably Little Dorrit, whose father..." In this sentence, Little Dorritt refers to the book, not the person, so the "whose father" part of the sentence needs rewording.
No, it doesn't when the name is given in italics. I see you have subsequently made the change, however Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Etymology
***"...a special jurisdiction of the English royal household that appeared around 1290..." I wonder if "appeared" is the best word? Wouldn't "was created" be more accurate?
I think it seems to have emerged at that point, rather than being created as such. Emerged might be better than appeared. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 18:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
***Ambiguity: "By 1641, around 10,000 people in England and Wales were imprisoned for debt" By "imprisoned" do you mean "in prison"? Otherwise 10,000 might be understood as the total imprisoned for debt that year.
Fixed with a source. "According to a petition presented to parliament in 1641, around 10,000 people in England and Wales were in prison for debt." SlimVirgintalk|contribs 04:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
***"...added on." "on" is redundant
Prisons in England
***"...a practice that ended in 1868." You have mentioned a list of practices – to which does "a practice" refer?
Penal transportation ended in 1868. I'll look to see whether that needs clarification. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 18:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified it. "Prisons were designed to hold people until their creditors had been paid, or their fate decided by judges: usually execution, the stocks, flogging, the pillory, the ducking stool, or, until the practice ended in 1868, penal transportation to one of the American colonies or to Australia." SlimVirgintalk|contribs 04:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
***"It was when Sir Robert Peel became Home Secretary in 1822 that prison reform in England began." An awkward formulation, which could be written as "Prison reform in England began in 1822, when Sir Robert Peel became Home Secretary."
"Before the Gaols Act 1823, then the Prisons Act of 1835 and 1877, prisons were administered by the royal household, and run for profit almost entirely without regulation by private individuals who purchased the right to manage and make money from them." I am confused by this. You describe a situation that was presumably reformed by the Acts you mention. But the Acts are spread over a period of 54 years. Can you clarify the progress of reform?
Not without writing a separate article. A number of Acts were introduced that had no direct effect on the debtors' prisons, or that affected some of them but not others, or that affected them all but were not enforced. It was a long slow process of reform, culminating in the Bankruptcy Act of 1869, which finally got rid of debtors' prisons, but that was after the Marshalsea's time, and other acts that outlawed making profits from any kind of prison. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 18:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you can clarify, very simply, with something like: "Before the process of reform which began with the Gaols Act of 1823, prisons were administered..." etc Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*** "...The Bishop of Ely's prisons" – Bishops had prisons? This could do with a mite of context. And up to what date are we to understand that the spiked collar treatment was administered in the Bishop's prisons?
Anyone could run a prison. What kind of context were you thinking of? I don't know what date that kind of treatment ended in other prisons. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 18:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:::::First, does "Bishop of Ely" refer to a particular bishop, or to the office? (In other words, were these prisons run personally by an individual, or were they effectively the property of the Church?) As to the second part of my question, does the source not give any date context for the medieval punishment it describes? Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The situation is clarified somewhat by the added footnote and by changing "prisons" to "prison"
*References: the list of these is very long – is every one cited at least once in the text? It would be useful if the list were subdivided among books, journals and online sources. The books should have ISBNs if published after 1970.
Yes, every one was used. There may be a few that are there because of earlier material -- some material was moved out of the article recently -- so I'll go through and make sure they're still sources. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 18:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked. There were three in Refs that weren't being used, two because quotes had been removed, so they've been restored, and the third ref moved to FR. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 04:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. What about the ISBNs, and my other suggestion? Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be a specific requirement that featured articles have to have ISBNs, but I have yet to see a recent one that lacks them. What possible reason is there for not including them? Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Tourist information ("How to find the prison remains"): I'm a bit nonplussed by this – not seen this sort of thing in an encyclopedia article, bus routes and all. Are you sure this is not out of place here? Brianboulton (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See below. If its informative to readers, and if it helps them go and find out more, I think it's a good thing. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 18:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
::*Fine, but I think it should be in the body of the article, as suggested below, rather than rather than tucked below Further reading. Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Policy-wise, style-wise, and by convention, it shouldn't be there, let alone in the last section. Still, "best" doesn't always mean "conventional", and I think WP:NOT was made for the more blatant cases where such how-to stuff starts appealing to hardcore experts or goes non-neutral ("There are many more beautiful yachts in this part of Monaco; here's how to get there!"). This section does interfere with the usual external link placement, but is otherwise a small part of the article. I suppose if I had written the article with it, the "How to find" part would be more like a "Marshalsea today" section just before the "See also"s.
Either way, the bus, train, etc. routes seem short enough to be prose-able—something like "Buses 21, 35, 40, 133, and C10 all pass near the remains. They can also be reached from the Borough station of Northern line and by the London Bridge train." I'd change that if I was sure it wouldn't change the list's meaning. --anoddname 01:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The how-to-find-it section is there in the hope that people reading the article might be encouraged to go and look at it, and to prevent them from doing what I did many years ago, when I spent an afternoon in contemplation of the remains, and of the terrible suffering, only to discover later that I had been looking at the wrong wall. The silliness was compounded when I went to the local history library afterwards to look at their archives, and mentioned to the archivist what an amazing experience it had been, seeing and touching the actual wall of the Marshalsea, not realizing that I had walked past the right wall on my way through the library door. :) SlimVirgintalk|contribs 02:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, reluctantly, on the following grounds:-*Lead: For reasons outlined in my comments above, I don't think the lead meets the requirements of FA criterion 2(a). Your responses to my comments on the lead are not particularly convincing. As explained above, I'm not pursuing this, though I still don't think the lead does the article justice. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
*Overuse of quotations: I can't see that my concern about the number and length of verbatim quotes in the article has been addressed. I have registered my feelings about this, but as no one else seems unduly concerned I won't pursue it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prose: It's fine by me if you choose not to adopt all my suggested minor prose tweaks, but there are more significant prose issues in this article which do need to be addressed. The unstruck examples in my earlier comments are cases in point. I have read through the rest of the article and found numerous further points that need fixing. A few examples (there may be more):-
**"...didn't like the beer being served in the taproom" - ambiguity.**This whole sentence: "The court was told of three other cases, that of Captain John Bromfield, Robert Newton, and James Thompson, who had all died after rough treatment from Acton, followed by nights in "the hole" or the Strong Room, then weeks in the sick ward, often left to lie on the floor in leg irons." Faulty grammar and construction, easily remedied.
I have altered the "that" to those" but the sentence remains convoluted and ugly. Brianboulton (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...Something he never forgave his mother for". Ugly prepositional ending.
**"Dickens (1812–1870)...." should be "Charles Dickens (1812-1870)...", as this is the first mention of him for some while.**Unnecessarily cryptic: "...who became known a few years later for founding Georgia." Why not tell the reader you mean the American colony of Georgia?**Neutrality issues: The comment "Like most other rules, it was ignored", without citation, sounds like editorial opinion, as does "Contemporaneous sources indicate that it satirized the Queen", again uncited. Same issue with phrases like "his worries were misplaced" and "As dreadful as the Marshalsea could be..." etc.
Other issues
No-break spaces missing throughout
No metric conversions for distances and areas
ISBN codes required
Except in the case of the Dickens debt, no updated values are given for the various money sums. I'm not suggesting that every case is converted, but a few more would not be amiss. Incidentally, I get a slightly different 2009 value from MeasuringWorth for the Dickens debt (£2954).
The article is basically fine, and I will be pleased to see it promoted in due course. However, it does require some further attention. Please contact me when you want me to take another look. Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, with respect, I think you're trying to impose your own views on the article too much. That is, I feel you're opposing because you would not have written the article this way. But I am asking you to judge whether it's FA quality in the way I wrote it, if you see what I mean.
I just randomly picked out one of your own FAs, Tom Crean (explorer). Looking at your lead (which I hope I'm right in assuming you wrote, or at least agreed with), I would not have written it that way. Who cares that he enlisted at the age of 15. That's not what made him notable, yet it's your second sentence. Your use of his name rather than "he" is a little confused e.g. "he was a participant in ..." followed by "Crean was one of the party of three..." with nothing in between to suggest that Crean was not still "he." And there is arguably OR: how do you know he lived "quietly and unobtrusively" until his death: almost by definition, you probably don't have a source for that.
But these are very picky criticisms, based on personal preference, and I would never let it stand in the way of giving the article FA status, because it's a fine article with a fine lead (even if not to my taste). SlimVirgintalk|contribs 22:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Final comments: Many of my concerns have been addressed. Others I don't intend to pursue, a few may be matters of personal preference. I am disappointed, however, that none of the "other issues" listed above have been acted on; I'm not too concerned about the absence of no-break spaces, but the others in that list are ways in which the article could be improved for its readers, and think such opportunities should be taken, even if there is no hard and fast rule. I have struck the oppose, and would be happy to turn this into a support given some movement on these issues, which I feel are important to the article as a whole. Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To recap, these are your remaining issues, as I understand them:
You would like to see the lead mention famous prisoners, and that there were two buildings. It's not enough to have that in the infobox.
I accept what you've done in this respect. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You want ISBNs for all the books. (I won't be adding these. I don't mean to be obstructive, but I'm very opposed to requiring FA writers to do things like this (on the grounds of instruction creep), especially when there's no benefit. If someone else wants to add them, that's fine though.)
I'm not sure there's no benefit. In my early Wikipedia days I was firmly pointed towards WP:ISBN which gives the rationale for them. I have always thought that they were required for FAs. If the director's delegates concur with your position that's fine by me.Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't like the Gaols Commmitte quote, or the Dickens quote at the end.
It's not that I don't like these quotes as such. I feel, however, that lengthy quotes that could be paraphrased are contrary to the guidelines of WP:QUOTE. Although a taste of original language is often useful, too much of it can affect the objective neutrality of the article. I am not, however, pursuing this point. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't like "Something he never forgave his mother for." (That is perfectly acceptable, you know; there's nothing wrong with ending a sentence with a preposition.)
I was taught otherwise, but maybe it's a rule only in English schools. I'm not worried about this Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't like the way I summmarized the sources with: "Like most other rules, it was ignored"; "his worries were misplaced" and, "As dreadful as the Marshalsea could be..." etc. You want to see citations for those particular phrases.
I do think that the first of these needs citing; the others, in context, can be left alone. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No-break spaces missing throughout (sorry, have no idea where or how to add them)
As a goodwill gesture I will do these. Then, if you look at my edit summaries, you will see what it's about. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No metric conversions for distances and areas (I can add some of these)
I have fixed the no-break spaces. The only issues outstanding as far as I am concerned are (1) the ISBN point on which I would like to have an authoritative ruling, (2) a citation for "Like most other rules, it was ignored", (3) metric conversions for distances and areas given in feet and yards and (4) indications of the values and modern equivalents of sums such as "2s 6d", "five shillings and sixpence" and "eight shillings and sixpence" which might not be understood by modern readers. These are relatively simple points. I realise that this FAC has become rather stressful for you, and I am sorry about that. Please take your time, and if you would like a helping hand with these chores please let me know, though I will be a bit busy during the next 48 hours. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: SlimVirgin has worked through my concerns, and although there are points of disagreement remaining, these are not in my view critical issues. There is often room for more than one point of view. From the start, my criticisms notwithstanding, I have felt positive about this article, and will be pleased to see it promoted. Brianboulton (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awadewit images
Awadewit, I'm not sure what you intended to do with the quotes. Did you mean to turn them all into blockquotes? SlimVirgintalk|contribs 00:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See explanation at my talk page. I've distinguished between blockquotes and pull-quotes. Awadewit (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3 There is a lot of work to be done on the images. At the present time, I have only looked at their copyright status, not at their layout.
File:Marshalsea-gates-December2007.jpg - Ideally, we would have the date the photo was taken and the author of the photo. Is this information available?
This is a good example of why I'm not keen on images being uploaded to the Commons without a local copy being kept. They made that information less easy to find. It was taken by Russell Kenny in December 2007. I've clarified. [71]SlimVirgintalk|contribs 03:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Dickens-at-the-Blacking-Warehouse.jpg - This was originally published in London, therefore on Commons we need to have a tag explaining its copyright in the UK. Do you know Fred Bernard's death date, by chance? Has he been dead for 70 years?
The atlas was linked from the Wikipedia page. I've added the requisite info. Awadewit (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Marshalsea prison 1773.JPG - The license on this image claims that it is in the PD because the author has been dead for 100 years, but the author is not listed. I didn't see an author listed at the source. Perhaps you can find one?
I wouldn't know how to find an author's name for that. There's a signature in the corner, but I can't make it out. It's dated 1773, so obviously the author has been dead for the requisite time. If not, I want what he's having. And in the U.S., anything published before 1923 is PD. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 03:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished fixing it up. Awadewit (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:John-Howard-prison-reformer2.jpg - The license on this image claims that it is in the PD because the author has been dead for 100 years, but the author is not listed. Please find his/her name as well as a date for the image (I wasn't sure if it was the same as the publication date for the text or not).
Published before 1923, so it's PD. It was published in 1850, so it's unlikely that the author has not been dead for 100 years. It's on the cover of the 1850 book cited on the image page. I've looked through it but they don't give the artist's name that I can see. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 03:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished fixing it up. Awadewit (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's dated 1729, which is the year the Gaols Committee visited the prison, I believe it was prepared as part of their report to parliament, but I can't be sure because I've not see the report myself. I've added that to the image page. [73]SlimVirgintalk|contribs 03:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished fixing it up. Awadewit (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Gen james oglethorpe.jpg - This needs a date, a author, and more complete publication information for the source. In particular, we need to know where it was published.
Do you think that image really is from 1945? I wonder if the Park Service got it from somewhere else. Awadewit (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am still a bit concerned about this image, as the style does not seem to match the date. Awadewit (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Sick men's ward in the Marshalsea prison.JPG - The license on this image claims that it is in the PD because the author has been dead for 100 years, but the author is not listed. Please find his/her name.
Same as above. I believe this was prepared by the Gaols Committee for its report to parliament in 1729. I've added that. [75]SlimVirgintalk|contribs 03:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished fixing it up. Awadewit (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Sirjohneliot.jpg - Is it possible to link to the source or describe it in more detail? Also, we need a date and an author.
Sorry, I didn't upload it, and have no idea. I can remove it if it's a problem. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 03:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted this from the article anyway, as it was crowding the text. I'll go ahead and put the image up for deletion, unless you want to do the detective work on it. Awadewit (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Charles Dickens.jpg - The author field needs to list the artist who drew the image, particularly since the license is claiming it is in the PD because 70 years have elapsed since his/her death. Do you know who this is?
Published before 1923. Again, I didn't upload this. It says it was published in 1905, so it would be unlikely if the author hadn't been dead for 70. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 03:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this image is on Commons, it also has to be in the PD in the country in which it was published. Any idea where Englische Literaturgeschichte is published? Awadewit (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is all I can find about it. [76] If the Commons has different rules, I can download it to Wikipedia. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 05:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a location, either. Since we don't know its country of origin, we will have to put it on en.wikipedia and delete it from Commons. On Commons, an image has to be PD in both the US and its country of origin (which you have to know). Awadewit (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Plan of the Marshalsea, 1843.jpg - Do we know any more about J. Shuttleworth, for example his first name or date of death? To establish that this is in the PD because he has been dead for 100 years, we need a bit more info on him.
It was published before 1923, so it's PD. I don't know his first name. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 03:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was published before 1923, so it's PD. Probably published in 1897. If not, 1901. Stoddard died 1931. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 03:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished fixing that up. Awadewit (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This will take some time to sort out, however I look forward to striking this objection after the work has been done. Also, note that if the author cannot be found for some of the above images, there are ways to license the images other ways, such as with PD-1923 or anonymous-EU. Awadewit (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick responses. Awadewit (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my oppose with regards to the images. Awadewit (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awadewit general
Oppose In general, this article is well-written and well-constructed. I was engaged while reading it and it covers what I have learned about Marshalsea in the past - I can't say whether or not it is comprehensive, but the information certainly seems accurate to me. However, there are a few small issues that I have with the article that preclude me from supporting at this time. I've also made some bold edits to the article (removed some images and blockquotes).
I find "Further reading" sections to be problematic. There must be a lot of material published on the Marshalsea. Why have these items been chosen to be listed here? If they are so important, why were they not used for the article itself?
Most were used in the article as sources in earlier versions. As the writing was tightened, they were removed and moved to FR, with the exception of Moses, which I haven't been able to find, but which is an important source. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 06:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the section should be deleted and Moses added to the "References", then? Awadewit (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I've not been able to find Moses, so he's not a reference. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we agree to get rid of the extraneous references, then? Awadewit (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How necessary is the "Southwark" section as a section? I'm wondering if it could be combined with the "Etymology, Marshalsea Court" section into a new "Origins and purpose" sort of section? Right now, the "Southwark" section seems a little disconnected from the article.
I like this in its own section. Southwark was defined by its prisons, theatres, and inns, because of its location just over the London Bridge. It's an important part of the story. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 06:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't flow well the way it is currently set up. How do you propose to solve this problem? I offered one solution. Another is to rewrite the opening and closing of the current section to make it flow better with the rest of the article. Awadewit (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The David Copperfield quote in the "Debt in England" section is not particularly evocative. Perhaps something from Little Dorrit or Pickwick that refers directly to the prison or debt in the quote itself? Without a direct connection, many readers unfamiliar with Dickens will wonder about the quote's connection to the topic.
The quote relies on the reader knowing the David Copperfield is in the same situation as Dickens, though. Not many people readers will know that. Why not put the quote as part of the caption to the illustration and say that Dickens described the experience of being a bootblack in the person of DC, etc.? Awadewit (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious why the two specific examples in the "First Marshalsea" section were chosen - why the Noorthouck quote and why the Darby story?
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you asking why I used Noorthouck as a source? Not sure what the Darby story is -- if you mean that he was hired to run it, it's an example of people being hired to run it, an important example given that it led to William Acton being hired, and the subsequent trial. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 06:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation for the Darby example makes sense. Yes, I am asking why you used Noorthouck - it seems a bit random. Why him? Why 1773? Awadewit (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The wives, daughters, and lovers of male prisoners were allowed to live with them, so long as they behaved themselves - You might give an example of some of these gender-specific rules. They are enlightening.
Women were expected to behave differently in the prison than the men - what did it mean for the women to "behave themselves"? This needs to be explained to the reader, who will not necessasrily know what 18th-century expectations were. Awadewit (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no need for other prisoners to see it, Ginger writes. - Who is Ginger? A short ID for the reader would be helpful.
It's John Ginger. I've added that on first reference. I may create an article on him if there's enough material. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 06:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but who is he? Historian John Ginger? What? Why should the reader believe him? Give us a reason! Awadewit (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that paragraph two of "Trial of William Acton" is based on Cobbett's trials. I'm forgetting - are those edited trials? I know that he edited some trial transcripts to favor his political positions. Prison reform was one of his issues.
You can see the source here. It's clearly not a full transcript if that's what you mean. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 06:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, "he edited some trial transcripts to favor his political positions". Have you looked into the reliability of this source at all? Early nineteenth-century sources can be sketchy. I know other trials Cobbett published were altered and edited for propagandistic purposes - that's why I'm asking. Awadewit (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Notable prisoners" section is a prose list. Could you reduce this effect by giving each paragraph a topic sentence? I see that each paragraph has a topic!
I feel that the Dickens section is a bit thin - considering Dickens often wrote novels to make readers aware of great social injustices, I think something should be said about this. Dickens did not just write about Marshalsea because of his personal connection - he also wrote about it for political reasons. A paragraph dedicated to the biographical background and a paragraph dedicated to his political angle should be sufficient. This would entail a slight rewriting of the section as it stands, not a massive expansion.
The extent to which Dickens wrote about the Marshalsea as a reformer, as opposed to simply writing about what he knew, would be an essay in itself. I'm not sure what I could say in a paragraph that would be worth saying. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 06:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it can, just like most every other section in this article. However, the failure of the article to mention this subject at all is a serious deficiency, as it leaves out a crucial part of the Dickens issue (many scholars would even argue the politics of his novels is far more important than their biographical background). Writing one paragraph on this topic would not be difficult, as there is ample material published on it. Awadewit (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what "of course it can" refers to. I feel there's already enough about Dickens in the article. You say there's ample material but I'm not aware of anything showing that Dickens wrote about the Marshalsea qua reformer, except in the obvious sense that he clearly wasn't extolling its virtues, and it was already closed or closing when he wrote about it. I have a copy of Philpotts book here, and I can add something if he has written about it, but if he hasn't mentioned that angle himself, I'd prefer not to go off on a tangent. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 07:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I'm not asking for an expansion, but a revision. Have you looked through JSTOR and MLA (there appear to be many helpful articles there)? Considering the huge amount of material written on Dickens as a social reformer and on novels such as Little Dorrit as a novel of social justice, I'm surprised you can be so sure there is nothing written on it. Philpotts is not the only source to look at - there are many more Dickens sources out there. I hardly consider this a tangent when Dickens is primarily known as a novelist of reform. Legal reform was one of Dickens' most frequently recurring issues - and this included prison reform. Mentioning this is crucial. Dickens wasn't just rewriting his own personal history - he was trying to change the world with his books. :) We need to alert readers to this. Awadewit (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the Marshalsea, not about Dickens, and it's already long. If you want to add something yourself, I'm unlikely to object to it—and if Philpotts writes about it, I will take something from him myself—but otherwise, I don't see how writing about Dickens's political work will help readers learn more about the Marshalsea. The reason I focus on Philpotts as a source is that, although he's writing primarily about Dickens, he focuses to a large extent on the Marshalsea, and on what we know about the Marshalsea from the novels. He is the source other academics cite on these points. That's why I'd prefer to be guided by his view on this. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 17:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is the nominator's responsibility to respond to comprehensiveness concerns. Awadewit (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest quoting two different sections from Little Dorrit in the "Debtors" section, rather than the same one twice.
I did that only because I was told off before for including pull quotes that weren't already in the text. So I compromised by having it half in, but you're right. I'll remove it. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 06:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They were supposed to have a separate yard to exercise in, so that criminals weren't mixing with debtors, but in fact the prisoners mixed happily. - Why is this being cited to Little Dorrit, a novel?
Because that's the source. There was previously a quote from the novel there, now removed. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 06:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're citing information to a fictional work? Awadewit (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as are all the secondary sources. A great deal of the information about the second Marshalsea comes from Dickens, as I said in the article, and it's regarded as reliable. Dickens reportedly played down the rowdiness of it, to satisfy Victorian sensibilities, according to Philpotts, but it's otherwise viewed as factually accurate. I'll restore the quote from Dickens that the reference was attached to, then it'll make more sense. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 17:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we, as Wikipedia editors, should be deciding what to quote from a novel. We should leave that up to the experts. Awadewit (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find your explanation deeply problematic. You write that there are contradictions, but Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to ignore those contradictions. According to WP:NPOV, we are supposed to present the major views, even if they are contradictory (I would think especially if they are). Moreover, in the link provided by you here, the article now notes that Dickens altered his description of the Marshalsea for Victorian sensibilities, so I would think that we would need other sources to counter this bias. However, this article does not provide us with that in the second section, as you acknowledge it largely rests on the Dickens material.
The only prisoners not expected to pay "chummage" were debtors who had declared themselves insolvent by swearing an oath that their assets were worth fewer than 40 shillings. If their creditors agreed, they could be released after 14 days, but if anyone objected, they remained confined to the "poor side" of the building, near the women's side, receiving a small weekly allowance from the county, and money from charity. - Why is this being cited to the Pickwick Papers, a novel?
Dickens, Charles (1850). David Copperfield, Spark Educational Publishing - Is this SparkNotes? I hope not...
I have no idea. It's just David Copperfield, which anyone's allowed to publish. Change to another publisher if you like. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 06:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but not everyone publishes equally carefully. I can find you a good edition of David Copperfield, if you need one. Awadewit (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no one text - the manuscripts differ from the serial publications which differ from the triple decker versions, etc. Careful editors take these things into account - that is why Penguin and Oxford editions tend to be better, as they have academic editors. Awadewit (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unfamiliar with Oberon, but I will let this point go, as the other points I've raised are so much more important. However, in the future, it would be better to use authoritative versions of the text. Awadewit (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Phillips, Nicholas (2006). "Crime and Punishment", High Sheriff's Law Lecture, Oxford, October 10, 2006 - I don't think we can use lectures, as they are not verifiable. The information in the lecture should be common enough you can find it in a printed source. Things such as: "Until the late 19th century, imprisonment alone was not regarded as a punishment, at least not by those imposing it. Prisons were designed to hold people until their creditors had been paid, or their fate decided by judges: usually execution, the stocks, flogging, the pillory, the ducking stool, or penal transportation to one of the American colonies or to Australia, a practice that ended in 1868."
[Added later] I tried to fix the call-quotes when I read this article the first time, but I was reverted. Although the MOS prohibits using call-out quotes or pull-quotes for blockquotes, they have been used for this article. On my computer, this results in a hideous layout, with large white spaces throughout the article. See, for example, this screenshot and this screenshot.
I hope these comments are helpful and I look foward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 05:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave me a note on my talk page when these issues have been addressed and I'll reread the article and reconsider my oppose. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, most of the issues - and, not insignificantly, the most substantial issues - that I have raised have been ignored. I had hoped to support this article, but I cannot do that at this time. If you would like help gathering additional sources from JSTOR, MLA, etc., I would be happy to help in that endeavor. Awadewit (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eubulides
Comment. Article looks very good. Haven't had time to read it as carefully as I'd like, but I have a few comments:
"There is some confusion regarding how many prisons there were in Southwark in the 18th century." Horsemonger Lane Gaol says it replaced the White Lion; doesn't that resolve the confusion in favor of five prisons, rather than six?
"In 1799, the government reported that the prison had fallen into a state of decay." This sentence is repeated in different sections. Surely it's enough to say it once. But isn't that phrase giving a misleading impression? The Marshalsea had been in a "state of decay" for centuries by 1799.
Prisons in England doesn't make it clear enough that debtors were the only long-term prisoners. (see Woodfine)
The article says little about the Marshalsea's earlier history, such as in Elizabethan times. (see Adams)
For quite some time counties and most towns were assessed ₤1/year for the relief of debtors in Marshalsea. (see Woodfine)
Here are recent citations that I found useful; they bring up some of the previous points, and some others.
Adams, Robyn (2009). "'The service I am here for': William Herle in the Marshalsea Prison". Huntington Library Quarterly. 72 (2): 217–238. doi:10.1525/hlq.2009.72.2.217.
Woodfine, Philip (2006). "Debtors, prisons, and petitions in eighteenth-century England". Eighteenth-Century Life. 30 (2): 1–31. doi:10.1215/00982601-2005-001.
I thought the Woodfine artile is just about Yorkshire ... I read it a long time ago. Do we really need to be putting in material on prisons from anywhere in England? Eubulides, what part of Woodfine do you realy think belongs in the article on marshalsea? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woodfine's material is mostly (but not all) from Yorkshire, but it does mention Marshalsea in places and its conclusions are about England overall, which would certainly be appropriate for Marshalsea #Prisons in England. I added "(see Woodfine)" in my comment above to mention useful points that I thought it made. In looking briefly at Woodfine again I would add one more important point that is currently neglected in Marshalsea:
Overcrowding, and the resulting disease and epidemics, was the thing prisoners complained of most; even more than physical maltreatment.
'It assumed jurisdiction over members of the household living within "the verge"' That was what the statute said, but in practice "the Marshalsea was widely used by people unconnected with the household for the hearing of their private disputes". The court also had a fairly loose definition of "the verge", sometimes going beyond the 12 miles of the statute. See McIntosh, Marjorie K. (1979). "Immediate royal justice: the Marshalsea Court in Havering, 1358". Speculum. 54 (4): 727–733. Eubulides (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding these, Eubulides, that was very kind, and they look interesting. I'll take a closer look over the next day or so. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 05:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixes
As the discussion is getting a little hard to follow, I'm going to keep a list below of the fixes I'm making as a result of the input, with the name of the person who made the suggestion at the front. I'll add to it as and when something is changed.
If I don't make a fix that was suggested, it means that I respectfully disagree and it's not required by policy/guidelines e.g. adding ISBN numbers.
Dabomb (Break 1): Dabs fixed.
WereSpielChequers (Break 1): I've replaced the lead image with an image of the first Marshalsea.
Brian (Brian): I've added an infobox which gives the dates of the two locations, which I hope will cover Brian's point about mentioning that in the lead.
Brian and Anoddname: I've brought the "how to find" section into the body of the article, and made it less list-like; see Marshalsea#How_to_find_the_prison_remains.
Brian: I've linked "unnatural crimes" at first reference.
Brian: The jurisdiction appeared --> emerged.
Brian: Clarified that 1,000 people were in jail in 1641, in the Debt in England section.
Brian: Removed anything not being used as a reference from the References section (there was only one).
Brian: Clarified that it was penal transportation that ended in 1868.
Brian: "Contemporaneous sources indicate that it satirized the Queen" removed.
Brian: The Prisons in England section rewritten slightly, which I hope might satisfy Brian's concerns. Current version, as opposed to previous version.
Brian: Added a couple more money conversions. [83]
Brian: Regarding Brian's point that I should change "£40 and 10 shillings" in the lead to "£40 10s," the BBC writes it as "£40 and 10 shillings," and they are quoting the Marshalsea Prison day book from the time. [84]
Brian: Added some of Brian's suggestions about the writing. [85]
Brian: Added some notable prisoners to the infobox, which I hope takes care of Brian's concern about needing some of them to be mentioned in the lead (with thanks to Thumperward for adding that parameter to the infobox). [86]
Brian: Fixed "Dickens (1812–1870)...." should be "Charles Dickens (1812-1870)".
Brian: Fixed "Why not tell the reader you mean the American colony of Georgia?"
Brian: I disagree about "Like most other rules, it was ignored"; "his worries were misplaced"; and "As dreadful as the Marshalsea could be..." needing a source. They have sources, and the sources make clear that most of the rules were ignored; Acton's worries were misplaced; the Marshalsea was dreadful. This is a just a question of writing. The NOR policy doesn't stop editors from summarizing in their own words; indeed, it encourages it.
Brian: Brian has asked for ISBN numbers, but these aren't required, it would be a fair bit of work for an article with this many sources, and there's no clear reason to provide them.
Brian: I rewrote the awkward sentence. It now reads: "The court was told of three other cases. Captain John Bromfield, Robert Newton, and James Thompson all died after similar treatment from Acton: a beating, followed by time in "the hole" or Strong Room, before being moved to the sick ward, where they were left to lie on the floor in leg irons."
Awadewit (Awadewit images): I've replaced the "pd-old" image tags with "pd-1923," in cases where it's not clear if the 100-year-rule is satisfied. Awadewit's other image issues are dealt with.
Awadewit (Awadewit general): Restored some material from Dickens about the Admiralty, which I had earlier removed, and which makes it clearer why Dickens is used as a source for this. See Marshalsea#Admiralty_prisoners, last paragraph.
Awadewit: Added something about how accurate Dickens was about the Marshalsea in Little Dorrit to address Awadewit's point about why we're using him as a source in general. [87]
Eubulides (Eubulides): Added in Notable prisoners section that it became the main holding prison for Roman Catholics suspected of sedition during the Elizabethan era, per Eubulides, using Adams 2009.
Eubulides: Slightly rewrote in the Closure section that it had fallen into disrepair by 1799; Eubulides felt it was repetitive.
Eubulides: Restored a quote, which I had earlier removed, from an anonymous witness that stresses the overcrowding: "170 persons have been confined at one time within these walls, making an average of more than four persons in each room—which are not ten feet square!!! I will leave the reader to imagine what the situation of men, thus confined, particularly in the summer months, must be." See Marshalsea#Debtors.
Eubulides: Added material about William Herle from the Robyn Adams paper Eubulides found. [88]
A word of caution regarding suggestions that I add this or that. The Marshalsea existed for over 500 years, so a lot has been written about it by primary sources, much of it contradictory. As this article can only be a certain length, I focused on two key primary sources (as I explain in the article here): John Baptist Grano, a prisoner who kept a detailed diary that became a major source for the first Marshalsea in 1728 and 1729, and Charles Dickens, who wrote about the second Marshalsea (1811-1842) in his novels, particularly Little Dorrit.
In order to avoid original research, I used these primary sources via two key secondary sources: John Ginger (for the first Marshalsea), who was given access to John Baptist Grano's diary by the Bodleian in Oxford, and who published it with an extensive commentary as Handel's Trumpeter: The Diary of John Baptist Grano (1998). For the second Marshalsea, I focused on Trey Philpotts of Arkansas Tech University, whose Companion to Little Dorrit (2003) looks closely at the Marshalsea via that novel. It was important to do the research this way, because of the high degree of inconsistency between the primary sources, and to some extent between the secondary sources too. So I had to tread carefully through it, and I used Ginger and Philpotts to guide me. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 20:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meta-comment. In dawdling down the FAC list I couldn't help notice that this nomination page has ballooned out to a gigantic size. Yet I remember thinking this was already pretty good stuff upon nomination, at least from the Cr. 1a perspective. I appreciate Brian's and Awadewit's expertise, and heck, I'm the nit-picker extraordinaire, but has this article not reached FA standard yet? I note that the nominator has bent over backwards to engage with the reviewers, and is one of WP's experts in the field of NOR. The use in part of a fictional work by one of the great 19th-century writers in English seems to be an innovation carefully judged within the bounds of NOR, and one that sets this article apart from other Internet sources on the topic as a rich and, given the circumstances, reliable account. If there are still objections, could they be raised here once and for all? Tony(talk) 16:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My issues are already clearly articulated. There is no reason to re-list them, especially since SV has not addressed the bulk of them. Awadewit (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler
Provisional support Support
("Provisional support" means that I haven't finished reading the article, but I like what I've read.)
I've read about a third of the article and find it to be very well written. There are some prose issues—nothing glaring though—that I've included in my detailed comments on the article's talk page. I will add my remaining comments tomorrow, which is also when I expect my vote to change to unqualified support. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now read up to the end of the Dickens section and added more comments to the article's talk page. The "1729 Gaols Committee" and especially "Trial of William Acton," are very moving. Enough that my critical eye failed me. Its writing must only have been a labor of love for the author. For that I offer my thanks and admiration. Changing to support. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fifelfoo and other shorts
Support Conditional upon: "^ British Library" citation be corrected to "British Library (undated). Plan of the late Marshalsea prison" because the footnote needs to indicate the origin of the document and the nature of the document being cited, and its readily corrected.
Congratulations, this article is a clear demonstration of how to deal with a subject matter where large number of primary sources exist: placing emphasis on highest quality secondary sources to structure the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support No comments to add worth scrolling to the bottom of this section again for. Nice work. Johnbod (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An educational and harrowing read, can you imagine if they had a debtors prison now? Half or more of the population of the industrial world would probably be there today.
Question Why doesn't the Lead image and the Marshalsea-plaque at the end also have alt text?..Modernist (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just now fixed the alt text problems that I found. The lead image was already OK. Eubulides (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, neither one looks right to me. The lead has nothing and the plaque looks incorrect, perhaps it needs a caption...Modernist (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, I confused the lead image's name with it's alt text. Fixed. By "Marshalsea-plaque" I assume you mean File:Marshalsea-plaque-December2007.jpg? That has alt text 'Plaque headed "Marshalsea Prison" ..."; are you not seeing that? Eubulides (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was also confused by the lack of alt= which I guess isn't always needed when the text is preceded by this symbol -> |...Modernist (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done...Modernist (talk) 17:55, 23 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 that it meets all of the featured article criteria. The article follows the structure guidelines given at the recently formed Aircraft Engine Task Force with the addition of a 'Production' section that was felt necessary. A sub article, List of Rolls-Royce Merlin variants, was created during the process to reduce article length. Recent extensive work by several editors including myself has concentrated mainly on compliance with the Manual of Style, copy editing and verification of references. A recent peer review (now archived) did not reveal any major problems. I realise that there may be minor issues remaining and am fully prepared, as nominator, to act on any requirements noted. The Rolls-Royce Merlin is a logical choice due to its relatively high historic profile, if the nomination is successful it would be the first aircraft engine featured article on Wikipedia. I have no particular bias towards this engine, I have a reasonable set of reference books and my aircraft engineering background has helped. Units in the 'Variants' section have been left abbreviated as they have in the 'Specifications' section. Many thanks Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've watched most of the recent editing on this article. When the first suggestion of this as a FA came up, I made several comments. All of my points were addressed to my satisfaction. The article itself covers and important topic in aircraft engines and covers it well. Detailed descriptions of the development and improvement process are excellent. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alt text done; thanks.Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Please see the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review subpage. Eubulides (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added alt text to the captions now, the infobox image is still not showing as having alt text using the tool, I tried to null it with the '|link=' parameter in various positions as there was no caption originally but this did not work, perhaps this is due to it being used in an infobox? Forgive me if the alt text is not perfect, this is the first time I have added it to an article and can understand the need completely. Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was quick! I fixed the infobox problem and tweaked the alt text to avoid phrases like "is shown" as per WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid. Some more phrases that need to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability and WP:ALT#Repetition include "in a museum" (multiple times), "in a Spitfire", "the carburettor, supercharger and intercooler". Finally, the alt text for File:RR Merlin labeled.jpg doesn't convey to the visually impaired reader the essence of that diagram, which which is that the engine is centered around a large propeller shaft, and that there are two cylinder heads in a V shape at the top, each with six cylinders. The alt text for that image need not list every label and detail, but a bit of the essence would be helpful.Eubulides (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like to keep on top of things!! I need to speak with the aviation project template co-ordinator to have the alt text parameter added where needed, I would guess that our many other templates do not have the facility. Will adjust the last mentioned image. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick work; it looks good. Eubulides (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a link to ram air, a disambiguation page. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have replaced the link to the Ram air disambiguation page with expanded plain text. The definition of ram air given there is not entirely correct and none of the six possible articles listed relate to this type of ram air. I have replaced File:Short Sturgeon.jpg with a similar related image (File:De Havilland Hornet F1.jpg) with a source. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Image check OK. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what this image check has checked. Presumably you a referring to the presence of alt text and the copyrights only. Presumably your check does not dismiss comments referring to other sorts of image problems. Snowman (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's correct. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
With your citations, you've run the publishers into the link titles, they need to be separate. Some also lack publishers entirely.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/merlin-lovesey.pdf is a reprint of an article.. does the site have permission to reprint it? It should be listed as the original article would have been, it's only being hosted by the site you found it on.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will look at them and replace them with reliable sources if they don't quote their sources, I should note that I did not add any of those links, preferring to use books instead. Can you clarify the point about publishers and link titles? The 'icons.org' link just opened for me. Will take a little time to do this and I am working for the next three days. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you have is something like this:[http://randomurl.example.html PUblisher - Title of Link] (date retrieved) when what you want is [http://randomurl.example.html Title of Link] Publisher (date retrieved), with the name of the publisher outside the external link. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was worried that this applied to the book cites, I suspect that I will be replacing most if not all of the web links with book references. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, I've corrected (hopefully) the ref format until replacements can be found. I suspect the information covered by the Lovesey pdf may already be contained in the adjacent refs. --RedSunset 19:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced 'fathom.com' with a book cite, I have removed the 'spitfiresite.com' link and the text that it was supporting as it wasn't mentioned there, I removed this text previously as there is no mention of this engine testing programme from other book sources that I would expect to see it in. It can be re-inserted if someone finds a reliable source.'Icons.org' is a UK Government sponsored site as part of the Department of Culture and is staffed by journalists and academics. The section of 'unlimited excitement.com' used quotes Graham White, "Allied Piston Engines of World War II", 1995 Society of Automotive Engineers as the reference source, I don't possess this book but I have no reason to doubt its accuracy. Will look at the others in due course. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Undent) I have moved the Lovesey pdf lecture to the external links section, it had a permission of 'courtesy of Harry Phil' (may have the surname wrong there) but I can not clarify beyond that. To replace this reference I have cited the original journal that it featured in. The lecture is available to purchase online at a cost of £13. Clicking on the blue date links at http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html reveals scanned copies of the original test reports which being UK government documents are in the public domain after 50 years (to the best of my knowledge). Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.spitfireart.com/merlin_engines.html lists 12 reference books at the bottom of the page, several are the same books that I am using (Lumsden, Gunston, Pugh), I can replace these cites with the author, year and page numbers in a conventional cite style if that is desired. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.spitfireperformance.com is similar to 'wwiiaircraftperformance.org' and shows a scanned part copy of the original unclassified test document and appears to have copied the document out in HTML format verbatim. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the others out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but if we can't determine if the site hosting the lovesdy article has permission, we shouldn't link to it at all, even as an External Link. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Lovesey PDF has now been removed from the external links section (per WP:EL) as the permission can not be readily ascertained. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewer notified of unstruck questioned sources [90] as suggested in the FAC process instructions. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article has quality writing and is well cited. Issues brought up above appear to have been addressed. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks ready to me. Let's move forward on this. - Ahunt (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is quite a lot of text in the "Prototype engines" and "Variants" without in-line citations and appears to be un-sourced. Surely, it would fail to attain FA status because of this alone. Snowman (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will have a look at this, was rather hoping not to add a cite after every line, will take a short while. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a blanket cite to Jane's at the top of "Variants", and another for the preceding text. --RedSunset 20:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited all the prototypes now and added a tiny bit of extra information while I was there. I can cite all the variants if the Jane's blanket cite just added is not sufficient. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that a blanket cite would be suitable, if it provides verification for all the types. I trust this is the case. Snowman (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That source formed the basis of the variants section, and further inline cites have been provided for additional information. --RedSunset 21:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of other blocks of text scattered throughout the article where the verification is not clear. Snowman (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be good practice to make sure all of the images are on commons. The image of the Vickers F.7/41 has a narrow border, which could be removed. I think that the caption "Merlin ejector exhaust detail" could be improved. Snowman (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict)The images have been passed as ok above, it's non-free images or unsourced ones that can cause problems is it not? I cropped the border of the Vickers image very slightly, had not noticed that before. On the exhaust caption I kept it short originally to stop it displacing the section header below, although I think text has been added in since, I could lengthen it but unfortunately I can't remember what mark of Spitfire it was! I do know that it was taken at Duxford, could add that. On the variants referencing Jane's covers very comprehensively the variants up to the Mk 266, it stops there as it was originally written in 1945. Lumsden covers all the marks up to the Mk 724 and includes the Packard V-1650-1 to 25. For the earlier marks Jane's is possibly the better reference as it gives the weight and power output of every mark. That section could be shortened as we split off a big list and duplicated table to List of Rolls-Royce Merlin variants, similarly the Packard V-1650 article was created from the Merlin article, it really was very long before the splits happened. Will have a look at the 'stray blocks.' Thanks for your input, much appreciated. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be the 'Grace Spitfire' based at Duxford – originally a Mk. IX? --RedSunset 22:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I would have noticed the second seat! I don't think it is MH434 either. Just a note that I will be only be able to pop in for the next three days in the evening (GMT) so apologies if there is no immediate response. Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the image check above was for obvious copyright problems only. My comment about the images is regards different aspects to that mentioned above. Commons is an ideal place to store images. To reflect the best of the wiki and good practice I think that images should be transferred to commons - that may not be a FA criteria, but I think that it would help to give a good impression. I think that you are going to need every point you can get to reach FA status. One of the images still has a narrow border and is inconsistent with the other images that do not have borders. Snowman (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the exhaust caption now that I have identified the aircraft from my original uncropped version. I checked all the images for borders just now and can't see any, have you purged since I edited the Vickers one? If it is a different image please let me know which one it is and I will fix it (my eyes are not what they were!). Really got to go as I have to be up early for work in the morning, cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did a bit of mouse clicking and the narrow border has gone now. Snowman (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All images now on Commons. --RedSunset 18:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just spent 20 mins or more tidying up the images - putting the aircraft image in a category on commons, tagging the old image on en wiki for deletion, uploading the original image to commons and tagging it with "original", tagging the modified image with "retouched". I think that makes the images easier to find and people can also refer back to the original. Snowman (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very thorough – thankyou for tidying the loose ends. --RedSunset 20:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is an omission that there is not a photograph of a Spitfire? Snowman (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the image of the deflector exhaust detail shows the Merlin fitted to a Spitfire, but I think a conscious effort has been made to avoid over-reference to the Spitfire generally since the engine was also fitted to many other aircraft. --RedSunset 22:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining the choice of aircraft images. Snowman (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any photographs of the factories to add some more variety to the images? Snowman (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, but they might help if anyone can provide suitable ones. --RedSunset 22:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are! I did not think to look in the Rolls-Royce category, I have added two images from Commons, editing the factory photo to remove an intrusive lamp post. With information from that photo I managed to refine the factory location wikilink. They compliment the text nicely. The location of the production line image is unknown unfortunately. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction: I think that the introduction is very difficult to read. I am not even sure what the main topics of the paragraphs are - it looks like content had been added randomly. The introduction is often the last thing to put right, so there is no hurry. Having looked at the source website, I was not sure about the bit about being considered <by who> a British icon, so I have deleted that bit - it does not appear anywhere else in the article anyway. I have reordered parts of the introduction, but parts of it still need to put in plain English, and more key facts probably need to be added. Snowman (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Improvements in introduction seen. Snowman (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think to understand the Merlin, its wartime importance must be mentioned with reference to enemy aircraft, engines, and perhaps rockets. The article seems to be about bits of metal mainly of interest to mechanics. I am sure the main editors will know what to add. Snowman (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above two comments will be taken into consideration, but note that the iconic status of the Merlin is mentioned in the Survivors section. --RedSunset 22:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is very brief. Snowman (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the four paragraph lead (as it was) had been carefully considered by many editors over a long period, the article talk page and revision history would indicate the care and thought that had gone in to it's 'moulding', it was in effect the 'consensus' version that everyone was happy with. I personally believed that it summarised the content of the article well without going into excessive detail. The lead is still being edited today, a product of a Wiki where everyone has a slightly different view of what words exactly should be in there. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not talking about a slightly different wording, I said that I thought the the introduction was difficult to read and that it looked like content had been added randomly in places. I note that the introduction is being improved and I know how difficult it is to write introductions. Snowman (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a guideline at Wikipedia:AETF#Images where it is recommended that images of rarer aircraft types are included in the 'Applications' section, I believe this makes an aircraft engine article more interesting and balanced, an image of a Spitfire could be included, where best to place it I don't know. I agree that an image or images of the factories would be welcome to break up the text, that section was written quite recently, unfortunately so far I have not found any Commons images to use there yet. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are others sources of images including the the "British War Museum". The "Geograph British Isles" have many places and buildings. Snowman (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that most aircraft engine articles are just about 'bits of metal mainly of interest to mechanics' (I would add 'enthusiasts'), how to describe a particular engine's 'operational history' is difficult and is probably why it is avoided in engine reference sources beyond reports of reliability and performance, leaving that aspect for historians who cover the parent aircraft type. It could be stated that 'the Merlin won the Battle of Britain' for instance but clearly referencing a statement like that is very difficult and would be prone to questioning. At times major edit warring has broken out in the Supermarine Spitfire and Messerschmitt Bf 109 articles, this unfortunately overspilled in to the 'Fuel' section of the Merlin article and, more recently, the supercharger article. One of the Good Article criteria is 'does the article remain focussed on the topic?', I believe that this article does. In other words I am personally reluctant to add lengthy accounts of wartime operations here although other editors remain free of course to do so if they wish. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not indicate "lengthy accounts of wartime operations", but I think that its place in history should be mentioned with reference to other manufacturers' engines. One FA criteria is that the subject should be fully covered. I also think that earlier engines, later engines and early jet engines, should also be briefly mentioned to outline the Merlins place in history. I do not see why historians views of the engine should not be included; in fact, I think that it is an omission that these sort of holistic viewpoints are not included. Snowman (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as British engines are concerned they were few competitors to the Rolls-Royce V-12 range, the Fairey Prince (V-12) project (three built) was actively discouraged by the government of the day, the Merlin's closest earlier relative, the Rolls-Royce Kestrel, is mentioned. The nearest equivalent German engines were the Daimler-Benz DB 600 series, the Daimler-Benz DB 601 is listed with four other comparable engines of different nationalities in the 'See also' section for readers to visit. I would include historian's views of the Merlin if references could be found for them, the book Sigh for a Merlin by Alex Henshaw (listed in the 'Further reading' section) is one that I don't possess yet and may contain extra information although I believe that it is limited to his experiences of test flying brand new Spitfires in England. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support and comment as a know-nothing on this topic, I found this interesting and well written. Three queries
In origins, "Merlin C and E engines" Why are the letters italicised
Although I would not go as far as Snowman, I did wonder what superseded this engine?
In the lead "most numerous" reads slightly oddly, but factually and grammatically correct, so it's probably just me
Thanks very much for the positive comments and taking time to read through the article, I see the formatting point and the 'most numerous' wording in the lead has been adjusted for the better. The immediate successor to the Merlin was the larger capacity Rolls-Royce Griffon mentioned in the last paragraphs of the lead and the 'Origin' section. As a 1930s design it is not mentioned in references that the Merlin was replaced by the jet engine, several other late WW II engine designs and projects were cancelled or production curtailed due to the advent of jet power, the unflown Rolls-Royce Crecy definitely being one of them. The Merlin was not, it appears, in the 3,000 horsepower plus piston engine class that the jet engine effectively took over from. The end of large scale Merlin production is more related to the end of the war with 'new crankshafts being thrown out of the window for scrap the day after the Japanese surrender' according to the author Alec Lumsden. Thanks again. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article has quality writing and is well cited. The intro reads well and is nicely rounded off. I'm not an engines buff but this article held my interest. --TraceyR (talk) 21:27, 5 October 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 up to the required level. This is a co-nomination between me and User:Ottava Rima; we've been discussing and working on proposed changes in the background for quite a while, and now that we've implemented them we feel it's time for FAC. Ironholds (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added my name to the nom to confirm. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alt text done; thanks.Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Most of the images are text-only; WP:ALT#Text provides particular suggestions for that case. WP:ALT#Portraits can be consulted for the portrait.Eubulides (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. I forgot about that somehow. Haha. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added alts - unfortunately, they are quite long as per what was required on the page you linked. Hopefully, no one will mind. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was quick work. I tweaked it a bit for brevity but couldn't resist transcribing the Horace. The alt text could be made somewhat briefer still and nobody would mind, but like Pascal we lack the time. Eubulides (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I left Horace out simply because it is translated in the caption. However, I don't know how to deal with such situations to be honest. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments: All fine. RB88 (T) 01:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They may be too many citations in the lead. If indeed the material is also covered in the text, then the citations in the lead can safely be removed. If not, then some of the material may need to moved into the text and the lead possibly rewritten slightly.
From the readers point of view (and mine), this "Even Swift's satire of Wood's character was based on actual evidence and added very little to what Wood provided the public through his words and actions." is cited to Treadwell p. 76–91. That's 15 pages. Could you give an explanation? (If the citation covers other preceding material, too, then add more citations to Treadwell as appropriate, preferably to specific pages).
Does that mean this one sentence is a synthesis of Treadwell's arguments from page 76 to 91? RB88 (T) 02:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This "The Drapier does not directly attack Isaac Newton's assay of Wood's coin, but instead attacks the process behind the assay and the witnesses who testified before the Privy Council. In his criticism of the Privy Council's report, the Drapier claims that the report is part of Wood's propaganda and lies, because Wood released three proposals concurrent with the report: lowering the patent production quota from £100,800 to £40,000 worth; that no one is obliged to accept more than five pence halfpenny per transaction; and to sell the coin at 2s 1 d a pound or his raw copper at 1s 8d a pound." is cited to Ehrenpreis p 226;229-230;249-250. The three citations have to be separated and put in their respective sentences to improve reader scholarship because, as it stands, the ref is a bit clunky and confusing.
The citations in the lead are duplicates of citations and passages in the body. However, the comments are -controversial- (as this is a pro-Ireland, anti-England subject), even if duplicated, and thus require a reuse of the citations.
"Could you give an explanation?" - it is a summary of what Treadwell points out, as Treadwell goes step by step and lays out examples. For the second section, it cannot be broken down, as Ehrenpreis builds the argument over those pages. You would have parts from page 229 before 226, or things in 250 before 230, etc. It would make it even more complicated plus condensing of references when it is the same author and the citations are back to back is standard practice, so the numbers would need to be united. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because File:377px-Swift-works.JPG is a derivative work of File:Swift works.png, the latter needs to be all nice and shiny too. Unfortunately, it needs a source. Can you contact Geogre and see if he can remember where he got that image from?
✓ Done
Please check if I got the source for File:Drapiers Letter 5.JPG correct, and fill in the date. Also, please add which edition you scanned it from, if you can remember, though that isn't such a big deal.
Regards, NW(Talk) 03:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, 1a. Although I haven't scoured it completely, it looks pretty well written. Bit overlinked (coin? English? Patent ... English-speakers supposed to know it means a monopoly). Lower down, "papal"? There is a section of the article on "Pope" that is more focused, is there? Same with "copyright"—surely there's a more focused, relevant target than the top of that article). The hated "in order to" (hated by Tony1).
"These coins would take away valuable silver coins from the Irish economy"—Unsure what "take away" means in this context. Dilute the value/status of?
"analyzed"—US and Canada only. S required for BrEng.
I guess an idea of what a vast fortune 108 thousand pounds was in those days is hard to convey neatly and accurately. And indeed a bribe of 10 thousand. Tony(talk) 12:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, Ironholds missed analyzed. :D The Queen wont be happy! Okay, for "papal" - are you saying that you want a better link than Pope? Because papal merely means the Pope's influence (i.e. his name is "il papa", so the adjective of papa is papal). Or are you saying that you want papal influence to be linked with some kind of historical page? If you could find a page devoted to post Reformation British fears of Catholic take over, I could link that (and if there isn't one, there probably -should- be one). Take away literally means the coins would be taken out of Ireland, stripping them of any hard currency. Ireland would have money -leave- Ireland without having any come in. I don't know the economics term for such a thing, but it does destroy economies (and creates massive deflation in a way similar to a loss of credit). I'll put a money converter for those figures. £14,697,000 and £1,360,800 respectively (or, about 26 million and 2 million). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some of the "in order to" but I wont remove the one from Swift. :P The first one is necessary to express a cause and effect that would be lost (if you can think of another way to accomplish it, that would help). I changed the link to copyright to Statute of Anne (the specific copyright law). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e.c.) "Papal"—it's a normal English word; I'm just searching for a better reason to link it. English-speakers are supposed to know what it means, and this is not Wiktionary. At a pinch, this section-link might suffice (it's not my field, though—better for your expertise to be the judge). OR History_of_the_Papacy#Reformation? Or better still Catholic_Church_in_England#Tudor_era? Sorry, I'm being lazy about the exact period. My point is that we can and should direct readers towards a much more specific part of WP than merely a definition (which they should know or look up in their dictionary).
I raised the currency conversion issue knowing that it's a vexed one for historians. WP:MOSNUM#Currencies says a few interesting things. You could provide an "approx." equivalent or be safer and say something like "a vast amount of money at the time". Unsure.
Would "removed from circulation" be acceptable for "taken away"? Tony(talk) 14:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the link to papal in general. I replaced "about" with "approximately" for the inflation numbers, and I switched in "removed from circulation". Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Queries I've made a few small tweaks, but wonder if you could check your sources about:
"The first three pamphlets were written as a set intended to conclude the matter. However, when Lord Carteret was sent to control Ireland and placed a bounty on the Drapier's head, Swift felt that a fifth pamphlet was necessary." So what happened to the fourth?
"Regardless of how secret Swift may have wanted his identity to be, it is certain that most people in Ireland, including members of the Irish Privy Council, knew that Swift was the author of the letters." Most people in Ireland is a petty big claim, especially in an era before radio and television. Would you mind checking your sources, is there any chance that this was referring to the opinion formers and the intelligentsia such as the limited number of people who could vote, or the people likely to have read a pamphlet with a circulation of 2,000?
" Wood is the giant invader who wears his brass coin as armor and Swift is just the small merchant who is not big enough to fill the king's armor" Would that have been Drapier not Swift?
"Although the language and examples employed by the Drapier to describe the possible economic harms were viewed as over the top," viewed by whom? ϢereSpielChequers 09:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the two typos (fifth instead of fourth, Swift instead of Drapier). There was more than just those that could read who heard about the Drapier and Swift's actions. Remember, this is a major constitutional issue for Ireland. Swift was a figure as wide known as Parnell. Most would only require 51%, and multiple sources verify it. As for the last query - "many critics and historians" follows that clause, and that is the subject of the sentence. The clause refers to them. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing those two points. I don't see that phrase as clear as to whether his comments were regarded as over the top by his supporters at the time, neutrals at the time or "many critics and historians". But now that you've clarified what it should mean I will try to clarify the sentence. ϢereSpielChequers 11:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking your sources about most knowing Swift was the author. I still think that "It is certain that most people" is a bit strong especially when qualified by "including members of the Irish Privy Council" (we don't exactly have MORI in that era). What do you think about "Regardless of how secret Swift may have wanted his identity to be, it became an open secret in Ireland, with even members of the Irish Privy Council knowing that Swift was the author of the letters." ϢereSpielChequers 12:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportFifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Decline: Footnote two is unverifiable as it lacks information about the location of the evidence for the claim within the work. "^ Coxe" is the footnote.[reply]
Minor nitpick: "^ Dublin Journal 3 December 1726" is not in common style. Also, it lacks location information. I know regarding 18th century newspapers, but you can always "¶beginning Birthday of Foo..."
Poor formatting, double period, "Goodwin, A.. "Woods Halfpence". The English Historical Review LI (1936): pp. 647–674. doi:10.1093/ehr/LI.CCIV.647."
Same, "Treadwell, J.M.. "Swift, William Wood, and the Factual Basis of Satire". Journal of British Studies 15.2 (1976): pp. 76–91.."
Same, "Weedon, Margaret. "An Uncancelled Copy of the First Collected Edition of Swift's Poems". The Library 5.XXII (1967): pp. 44–48.."
Maybe your citation template is acting up on periods? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. That second citation lacked the numbers but the inline citations for the actual text has the numbers later. This was added back in to the first position. 2. The citation was a stray citation and was moved there. I removed it, as the passage is to Ehrenpreis. 3. Fixed. 4. Fixed. 5. Fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – overall a nice article about an interesting topic. A few quibbles:
"Patent" is used in an uncommon sense, as nowadays patent implies an invention. Suggest changing repetition of patent to monopoly, thus "William Wood was granted a patent to mint the coin, and Swift saw the licensing of this monopoly as corrupt." and in the Backgound section "In 1722, hardware manufacturer William Wood was granted a patent to produce copper coinage of up to £108,000 (approximately £14,697,000 as of 2009) for use in Ireland.[8] This monopoly was secured by a bribe of £10,000". Note the piped links are to Letters patent which seems appropriate.
Throughout the article there are references to the English government and the English Parliament. Much as I like to blame the English for any nastiness, the period is after the Acts of Union 1707 and so it should be the Parliament of Great Britain, and hence the British government. Dominated by the German king and the English nobles, but nominally British. Similarly, in the To Mr Harding section, "the English Privy Council" is presumably incorrect, safer to follow Swift's later usage and call it "the Privy-Council in England".
In Background, "These coins would remove from circulation valuable silver coins from the Irish economy, and since the new copper coins would not be minted under Irish authority, there was no way for the Irish to control the quality and amount." is a bit of a guddle. Suggest "These coins would remove valuable silver coins from circulation in the Irish economy, and since the new copper coins would not be minted under Irish authority, there was no way for the Irish to control the quality and amount."
Also, "Wood's coin was only one aspect of "an unfavorable balance of trade" that hurt Ireland;[11]" is presumably quoting Moore p. 66 directly, and introducing US spelling into a European English article. (note care to avoid saying the Irish are English! :) Why not just omit the quotes and call it unfavourable? The same reference is also cited for the preceding sentence, so that earlier inline cite is superfluous.
Pamphleteering – "a religious devout individual who believes in scripture" seems wrong, should be "a religiously devout individual who believes in scripture" or "a devout religious individual who believes in scripture" in my opinion.
Pamphleteering – "meant as an important aspect to the Drapier's identity" should in my view read "meant as an important aspect of the Drapier's identity".
Pamphleteering – "four more pamphlets, filled with invectives and complaints" should I think be "four more pamphlets, filled with invective and complaints".
To the Shop-keepers – "Tenant farmers would no longer be able to pay their landlords, and , after the tenants are removed, there will be fewer crops grown in Ireland; the increase of poverty and the decrease of food supply would completely ruin Ireland's economy." – shouldn't that be past tense throughout?
To the Shop-keepers – "The Drapier makes sure to use Wood as the primary target" seems awkward, it might be better as "The Drapier is careful to use Wood as the primary target" or "The Drapier makes sure that Wood appears to be the primary target". [surplus "to" removed by me as minor edit]
10. To Mr Harding – "Wood's choice of wording, that the Irish he would be "obliged" to accept the coin" presumably has a surplus he, also "the king is unable to constitutionally force any money to be accepted by his people except that made of gold or silver." might read better as "the king is unable to constitutionally force his people to accept any money that is not made of gold or silver."
To the Nobility and Gentry – "This document was released by Walpole as a defense of Wood's coin; the report argues that the coin was important to the people of Ireland." mixes tenses, "argued" would be more consistent. "Wood is the giant invader who wears his brass coin as armor and the Drapier is just the small merchant who is not big enough to fill the king's armor." should be armour.
To the Whole People of Ireland – "£300 were offered as a reward for the identity of the Drapier." is technically correct but looks awkward, I'd have been inclined to say £300 was offered, or perhaps a reward of £300 was offered.
Hope these suggestions help, dave souza, talk 08:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ironholds is the law expert so he can deal with the first one and the second one. 3. Changed (added "and gold" after silver). 4. I reworded to "Also, Wood's coin was only one example of unfavourable economic practices that hurt Ireland". 5. Fixed. 6. Fixed. 7. I don't know if "invective" is a natural plural but I made the change anyway. 8. It should be seen more as a hypothetical than as any specific tense, but I think I made changes to fix it. 9. Fixed. 10. I reworded the sentence and the next. 11. Changed. 12. Fixed. I'm thinking that all of the present tense used in the article about the letters might need to be changed over in order to avoid future inconsistencies with tense. It is frustrating to have to deal with documents in present tense but historical events in past. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will see whether Ironholds agrees with the legalities of the first two points, though of course there was (and is) a common practice of saying "England" when "Britain" is intended.
10. as reworded looks a bit better to me, but "As the Drapier points out, the constitution establishing Ireland as a kingdom limits the authority of the monarch because it forces the people of Ireland to use only gold or silver coins as official currency" seems to imply the king can force the people to not use coppers. Suggest "As the Drapier points out, the constitution establishing Ireland as a kingdom only gave the monarch authority to establish gold or silver coins as official currency, and did not give him powers to set copper coinage." Legal tender may be worth linking from official currency, if applicable: best check that with Ironholds. (aside: the banknotes in my wallet aren't legal tender, but as Royal Bank of Scotland and Clydesdale Bank notes they're much nicer designs than the Bank of England notes, and in practice work just as well)
Agree that the tenses get tricky when describing documents, we had some issues with that on The Origin – think it's looking better now. . dave souza, talk 15:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"seems to imply the king can force the people to not use coppers" My reading of the sources seems to verify that implication, but I don't know about the actual law and I could be misreading sources. I asked Ironholds to hurry up and make an appearance here and I will differ all knowledge on the constitutionality to him, as he is an expert on British law. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the Privy Council - English is commonly used (to distinguish between the Council and other, albeit abolished bodies, such as the Scottish Privy Council) but British would be best in this situation. There was "England" and "Scotland" prior to 1707, but since those two bodies were then unified "British" is technically correct. Alternately we could use the official "Her Majesty's Most Honourable..." but that'd just confuse people. To summarise; "English" is sometimes used, but "British" would be the closest to a correct term that doesn't confuse people. I appreciate this statement may have confused people; in my defence I just had a financial services law lecture. Ironholds (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. This raises an additional problem - Parliament. British or English? Technically British, so I've changed it to British, but it occurs to me that this might confuse people when you have "the English did this, the British Parliament did that". Do we change all instances of English to British? Ironholds (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume we are going to have to. I blame the Scots. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they hadn't financed a silly colonisation attempt it'll all be dandy. So shall we change instances of, say "the English people" to "British", then? Or just all official bodies? Ironholds (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking this on board, Damien Scheme or no. I'd be inclined to follow the sources: Scots and Welsh were probably not noted as involved so much in the opression of the Irish of that time, and it's likely that complaints were against the English as being the main group in charge. So yes, I'd think it best to keep official bodies correct, but we could be more relaxed where sources refer to English people. Even people who are unaware of these nuances are unlikely to notice that as being anything amiss, as British and English are rather often used interchangeably. . .dave souza, talk 19:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. So; British for the Parliament and Council, English where otherwise used. I've implemented those changes - give me a poke here or on my talkpage if I've missed any. Ironholds (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without checking right through, the lead has "...prompting from the English government... Many Irish people recognized Swift as a hero for his defiance of English control over the Irish nation." Thought you'd want to review how that looks with British government, and of course I don't have the source for the second statement to hand. Have you any thoughts about patents really being letters patent giving a monopoly, as my first point? . dave souza, talk 20:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and made more changes of English to British along with put "letters patent" in two places (beginning of lead and beginning of background). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also just realized that there was an extra "he" that you pointed out above. I removed that. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you've acted to meet my concerns, even if the poor old Brits are getting most of the blame now! Don't know if others will want to review these changes, but that's sufficient for me. Couple of points for you to ponder: I'm uncomfortable about "British copyright law" as I've been brought up to think of English law and Scots law being separate but related systems, as shown in British law. However, there is clearly British (and subsequently UK) legislation, so it may well be valid to call it "British copyright law". As someone used to dealing with contract and acting under legislation rather than a lawyer, it's beyond my expertise. Also, not sure if the term is singular or plural, it seems a bit odd saying "a letters patent" but as far as I can tell it's correct. Thanks again for tackling this and checking for ones I'd missed. . . dave souza, talk 21:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a law student, so I can handle this stuff :). Letters patent is the correct term. In regards to "British law", many areas of law are "British" - company law, for example. Most statutes in such areas cover the entirety of the UK. What distinguishes Scots and English law in such situations is the interpretation by judges of the statutes. Because of that there is both "British" copyright law and "English" or "Scots" copyright law. In the context of Motte v. Faulkner it is "English copyright law", since it's an English interpretation of a statute, but if we're just talking about the Statute of Anne it's British. This could be easily resolved if we just used "Statute of Anne" instead of "British copyright law" - thoughts? Incidentally Motte v. Faulkner needs to drop the . - I'm editing that out now. Ironholds (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that educational and informative clarification, I was conscious of there being a complex situation but am not knowledgeable enough to advise. I did consider ""British copyright legislation" but leave the decision in your capable hands. Much appreciated, dave souza, talk 22:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmn, hadn't considered that. I guess that works just as well (slightly better, in some respects) as "Statute of Anne", so lets do that. Ironholds (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. Majorlytalk 00:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alt text is done. Alt text is present (thanks), except that the two images in the lead infobox need alt text (use |alt= and |map_alt=). Eubulides (talk) 04:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The lead image looks good now. Could you please modify the alt text for the map so that it describes where Bramhall Hall is within Manchester, and where Manchester is within England? That's the gist of the map. Details like "red circle" should be omitted as they're not important. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for details.Eubulides (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've moved some text around in the lead, so as to assert its importance earlier. Nevertheless, I feel that the lead could be developed further per WP:LEAD. It currently stands at one and a quarter paragraphs, with some very important details omitted, such as its mention in the Domesday Book. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Improved - is it better now? Majorlytalk 14:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the lead is much better now. Having read more on this fascinating subject, it's obvious that the Davenport family history is deeply tied to the estate's. From the absence of any links to individual Davenport or family, I assume no article about them has been written so far. I feel some of the fine detail which would be better spun off to an article about this clearly notable family, as I fail to see a demonstrable direct connection between some of the given facts and the property. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support on sourcing. I was asked to look at the page in order to help with some aspects. In doing so, I checked various sources and looked into the sourcing for various components of the page. I found no problems and I feel that the sources I was able to check were done well. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A well written and comprehensive account of this manor house and the families who lived in it. I actually failed this at GAN some time ago, so it's great to see how it's come on since then. --MalleusFatuorum 15:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
C. Hoyle is the photographer and originally uploaded it. There is no reason to doubt they are the creator of these images. Majorlytalk 15:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be made expressly clear than. The image descriptions are junk. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really think labelling things as junk is incredibly unhelpful. Please don't do that, especially when it's simple to fix. Majorlytalk 20:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what an appropriate license is for this image published in 1851, if pd-old isn't right. Majorlytalk 15:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need sources and death dates for the artists if you want to assert that it's public domain because they've been dead more than 70 years. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then the license is appropriate, you just want extra things. Please be clearer next time. I'll see if I can fish out a source for the author's death (though I doubt I'll be able to find one). Otherwise this clearly public domain image (published in 1851) will have to go. Majorlytalk 21:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is his death date (1894). I've no idea how to add the source for a death to an image though, since I've never had to until now. Majorlytalk 21:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the author's date of death (1894) to the description. --MalleusFatuorum 21:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what is unclear about the year 1627, written on both images in the appropriate space. The artist is unknown, or at least not credited, but I am pretty sure they have been dead more than 70 years. Majorlytalk 21:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's clearly a different issue, unless the author is an unknown nosferatu, but I've changed the licence claim to suit.--MalleusFatuorum 21:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - subject to resolving the image licensing issues. A beautifully written article. Is this doubling of name intended, "Her eldest son, William Davenport Davenport"? Graham ColmTalk 15:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks (that comment means a lot!) Yes, it is intentional. Strange though it may sound, it's when his father took the Davenport name, and presumably, added it to the "Davenport" that was there already. Majorlytalk 16:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets all of the criteria and provides a thorough treatment of an interesting event. The article was a former FA and a TFA in February 2006. It was delisted mostly on concerns of inadequate citations. Since then has been expanded and thoroughly referenced, with particular assistance from YellowMonkey. –Moondyne 13:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's something odd with the FA archives - this may be the problem. Grateful if an admin can fix. –Moondyne 14:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It reads well and the prose is good. The image alt-texts are problematic, though. They all just rephrase the captions. As per WP:ALT, an image's alt-text should describe the visual dimension of the image and nothing more. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. –Moondyne 00:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting! I decided to read it because of the title and was ready to be disappointed when I found out it was about cricket, but it managed to keep my historical interest! Some random comments:
Could we not repeat "riot" in the first sentence?
Fixed. –Moondyne 00:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of one or two line paragraphs that are not real paragraphs; there need to be three or more sentences. These little orphan ones should be merged or fleshed out.
Agreed and done. –Moondyne 01:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the entire text in the reaction sections of everyone's letter is necessary, especially since they are so long. Martin Raybourne (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was half-expecting a comment about the letters. Their inclusion was discussed several times at the previous reviews and opinions were mixed. My view is the two letters in their entirety are important for context. They are the story of the backlash and a description or excerpts or paraphrasing just doesn't seem to work. If a reader wants to skip the indented letters they easily can. –Moondyne 00:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to your judgement, then. It's all public domain so there's no real issue aside from taste as far as I know. Martin Raybourne (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice read, I made a few tweaks, hope you like them - if not its a wiki. A couple of questions "including many XVIIIs" - what were they?, "They put on 125 for the first wicket before Spofforth bowled Lucas for 51 and Hornby soon after for 67." - thats 118. I suppose there could have been 7 or more wides but that seems a tad high - can you check or were things different then? PS I think that including the letters works well. ϢereSpielChequers 08:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions and your comments. Cashman (1990) p.107: "So from 13 May until 1 September [1880] the Australians played only five games against first-class opposition and another twenty-five against lesser opposition, against XVIIIs." List of Australia in England matches (1880), plus two in Ireland in June and two more in Scotland in late September. Any more detail is too obscure to be included in the prose, but I will add these links as references. –Moondyne 07:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The match record does confirm those numbers, and that extras were b 14, lb 3, nb 2 at the end of the innings, so it is quite feasible that there were 7 (or more) extras when the 1st wicket fell (118/248=47%; 7/19=36%). I'm certain I've read a contemporary newspaper account of the innings which discussed extras, but have lost the details. That's going to bug me now :( –Moondyne 07:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the number is referenced directly from the archival pages and, also Hornby fell a bit after so the No 3 batsman would have come in and could have added a few runs before Hornby fell YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What a magnificent way to use wiki source. 10:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Decline concern at the slab quotes (if it makes me feel TL;DR, and is more than a screen length, its a concern). Paraphrase in prose while cutting length, only use the most pertinent and telling sections of the letters as quotes. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References are in unacceptable format; locations are missing for almost all works. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete might be a more accurate word. Locns added. –Moondyne 05:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With a history article, an incomplete reference is an unacceptable reference. Its somewhat like noting the margin of error, statistical correlation, or other basic academic structure of disciplinary acceptability. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement in the FA criteria for locations to be listed for references. While it's always nice to have locations, it is not a requirement for FA. Opposing an article solely for that lack is unactionable. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link and quote that? Location is an essential element of source verification, particularly where publishing houses publish UK and US editions in the same year under the same house, which may have different paginations, and demanded by most style guides in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Given that this is a Sports History / Social History FAC, and the standards of history are highly demanding as regards quality citations, including location. Location is also remarkably easy to fix, easier than fixing missing or incorrect alts. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that neither WP:V nor WP:CITE make any requirement that any citation system is required. Note at the top of WP:CITE, that the example given is lacking a location. You'll also note that the FA criteria don't prescribe any particular citation style, so editors are free to chose a style they are comfortable with, as long as its consistent. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment very nice article, and (knowing very little about Cricket and Australian history) an interesting piece of history. I found the use of "Victorian" in the lede a little jarring - it might be common usage in Australia for someone from Victoria, but it sounds to me like it's referring to someone from the Victorian era! Also the blockquote letters seemed far too long. I understand they are in the public domain, and they are great historical documents, but perhaps a paraphrase and a link to a copy somewhere else would be more suited to an encyclopaedia.Davémon (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Images desperately need a check. Several are of the "life of the author plus xx years" variety, but there is no proof of when the author died in these cases. It may be possible for these to be public domain in another way; I'm more familiar with U.S. requirements than those of the U.K. or Australia.
Several images replaced or notated as needed. I believe all are good as of now [94]. –Moondyne 14:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with a couple of the other reviewers on the blockquotes. Brief quotations from them would be great, but re-printing the entire letters is just too much.
Background: "while promoters sought the best cricketers, they still had to agree terms with them." Should it be "agree to terms", or is the original how you would say it with British English?
Space needed after reference 9. I'm reasonably sure the Manual of Style calls for references inside dashes for situations like this. Why references should be inside dashes, and not other forms of punctuation. I will never know.
"Despite the presence of two professionals in the team, the team...". See the close repetition here? I'm guessing this would be "they" at the end.
"Cheating was a regular occurance in 19th Australian cricket". Missing a word.
"illegal bowling actions in order to use physical intimidation as a means of negating opposition batsmen." Little wordiness that's easy to remove and doesn't change the meaning.
"was prominent in his New South Wales pursuing a policy of condoning illegal bowling". I assume "his New South Wales" refers to Gregory's team? That was a shade confusing the first time I saw it.
Match: "he was however yet to make his first-class cricketing debut." Don't like "was" here; check to see if "had" is any better. I also wonder if "however" could be moved up; although it's meant to provide contrast in this sentence, I felt that it got in the way somewhat.
"At about 12.10pm in front of approximately 4,000 spectators". Manual of Style recommends colons for time, not periods. Not a big deal, but worth fixing up with these other suggestions. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wordy fixes done. Still looking into the erf/dash. Images and quote not done yet YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Letters removed per suggestions above. Paraphrasing may need some tweaks. –Moondyne 02:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded a bit to show the contentious/testy parts of the exchange. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ref 54 says both letters published in 1 April. NSWCA letter was written on 4 June. –Moondyne 02:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YM fixed. It appears the NSWCA letter previously at WS was an abridged version only. Have expanded to full vesrion per NLA archive. –Moondyne 06:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Driver mug can be replaced with one on ADB, as date is known for sure for PD-Australia. Barton is fine. Coulthard is fine as he never left Australia so the painting must've been done in Aus. The rest, which appear to be taken in England, we don't know if the photographer died before 1939, in case they were 25 when the photos were taken and lived to 90, might have to be commented out. Unless an Australian one can be found for the Englishmen. 02:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for replacing the pic. Also added bit frome xpanded letter where they criticised Harris for encouraging the riot (in their opinion) YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - meets FA criteria. interesting read. Dincher (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3
File:Wg grace.jpg - This image needs to more information on the source. Either a link to the BBC website or specific information on which issue of Vanity Fair this was first published in.
File:GCoulthard.jpg - A little bit more work needs to be done to find information on this image. It looks like a cropped head from a painting or lithograph. We need to make an effort to find the original artwork. The facts about the person's life present on the image description page are not relevant to the copyright - only facts about the artwork are. Unfortunately, we don't know any of those yet. Currently, there is not enough information to support the license on the image description page.
Thanks for working on these! Awadewit (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although a central figure here, not a great deal is know about Mr. Coulthard except that he was probably more noatble as a footballer. (here's another pic) He died in 1883 aged just 27. As best we can tell he never left Australia—certainly he never left a record of having played cricket elsewhere. The picture appears to be of him in sporting gear, so its a safe bet that this is from a painting done in Australia. The image original source appears to be from the Wisden Group's Cricinfo website which states "Reproduced with permission from The Cricketer International", an monthly magazine (since 1921) now also within the Wisden group. There doesn't appear to be an image index for the magazine I can find. –Moondyne 01:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:RossRSmith has solved the puzzle and informed that the Coulthard image comes from here. WP image page is updated accordingly. –Moondyne 12:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! I have stricken the oppose. Awadewit (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting, well-written and comprehensive article.--Grahame (talk) 00:24, 6 October 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 an account of perhaps the most famous case of child serial murders in 20th-century England, mainly because one of the murderers was a young woman. Her accomplice is still alive, incarcerated in a high-security institution for the criminally insane, the longest-serving prisoner in the English system. Parrot of Doom and I have worked hard to make this a comprehensive and accurate account of the incomprehensible events more than 40 years ago that left at least five children dead. MalleusFatuorum 22:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been on my watchlist for years, so I've noticed Malleus and Parrot working hard on this recently. I believe it meets the appropriate criteria to become a featured article. It's particular great as it's one of those topics that can be very emotional, both to work on and to read (I worked on the James Bulger article about three years ago, and it was particularly emotional for me as I read about it, as he was only a little younger than me.) This article manages to describe the topic without it becoming too emotional or biased, and in a sensitive manner. It's also an important topic in British crime history, so well done and thanks for your hard work. Majorlytalk 23:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. This page was on my watchlist long before Fatuorum got its hands on it (am a Smiths fan). Its been fine to watch it develop over the last 3 months, and I've read it once or twice, or at least more time than I care to admit, at my age. Support. Ceoil (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review (Support on criterion 3)
File:LowerBrushesValley.jpg needs a better link (to a page where you can click to the image from) to verify that it was taken from this page, and that the image is indeed licensed under CC-BY-SA-2.0.
The non-free rationale used for File:Myra at John Kilbride's grave.jpg seems rather weak. It certainly shows the emotion of the moment, but it isn't really critical to understanding the article, I don't believe. What are your thoughts on this image?
The rest of the images look fine. Good work. NW(Talk) 02:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replies
I've altered the links to the first two images to point to the pages they came from.
I think a fair use claim for the picture of Hindley kneeling over the grave is justifiable, on the basis that it's an example of the type of photograph the police were using to base their search of the moor on, but I wouldn't fight you over it.
I read over again the section where that particular fair use image was used, and your comment seems reasonable. I expanded the fair use rationale a bit[96], and so that image should be fine. NW(Talk) 20:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent, well-written, comprehensive, very nicely structured. Three suggestions:
(a) With quotations, I prefer to know who has said it. For example, "Such a relationship was not unusual in Holloway at that time, as 'many of the officers were gay, and involved in relationships either with one another or with inmates'". I would write: "John Smith writes that such a relationship was not unusual in Holloway at that time, as many of the officers were gay, and involved in relationships either with one another or with inmates". In-text attribution, no quotation marks. Or keep the quotations marks in cases where the words are in some way distinctive or important, but I think in-text attribution is needed, unless it's obvious from the context who is speaking.
(b) I would like to know what happened to the dog who died during the examination to determine his age, which sounds like a very odd thing to happen, and immediately raises the question why.
(c) "Hindley was at liberty for four days following Brady's arrest, during which time she went to her employer and asked to be sacked so that she could go on the dole. While there she found some papers belonging to Brady, which she burned." I'd like this to be explained a little. While there: where, at her and Brady's workplace? Which papers and why burn them (assuming it's known)? Also, I think "dole" should be avoided given it's an international readership.
But these are just suggestions based on personal preference. Overall, it's excellent. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 04:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replies
(a) It was a former assistant governor (who wished to remain anonymous) who made the claim that gay relationships were common in the prison at that time. I've added that in.
(b) The dog's death was left dangling a bit I suppose. I've added a paragraph to explain, as it also sheds some light on Hindley's mental state, but basically the test had to be done under a general anaesthetic, from which the dog didn't recover as it had an undiagosed kidney condition.
"(c) I've changed "dole" to "unemployment benefits". Hindley went to her and Brady's place of work, where she found some papers belonging to him. They were in an envelope she claimed she didn't open, but she said later that she believed they were plans for bank robberies, so I guess that's why she burned them, to destroy the evidence. I've altered this section in an attempt to clarify.
"While there she found some papers belonging to Brady, which she burned". Comment per SlimVirgin above.
Initial Investigation
I think you have done an excellent job in treating a complex and difficult subject with great sensitivity. My only quibble is with "Brady admitted to taking the pornographic photographs" - somehow the repetition of "pornographic" seemed unnecessary.
Later investigation
It's Hoegrain in the text but Hoe Grain in the caption. Is this a rivulet of some kind? I can see nothing on the OS.
Personal backgrounds
"He was also accepted for the Shawlands" "He also had a girlfriend". Neither "also" conveys much.
" Within a year of moving to Manchester Brady was caught trying to smuggle a sack full of stolen lead seals out of the market,". The ambiguity of "lead" and "seals" had me wondering what was in the sack for a moment. Then I wondered why anyone would hide a sack of stolen goods in the market at all. Was he trying to steal them by smuggling them, or were they already stolen?
What kind of business is "Bratby and Hinchliffe". All the others seem to get a mention.
As murderers
" Reade had been at school with Hindley's younger sister, Maureen, and had also been in a short relationship with David Smith, a local boy with three criminal convictions for minor crimes". I am not at all sure how to fix this, but we have already met Smith and at first I wondered if this was a second person with the same name.
Hattersley is not a New town in the British sense - it's an overspill estate.
Legacy
I don't doubt that Hindley has been compared to Maxine Carr, (or rather vice-versa) but the comparison is, from Carr's perspective, unreasonable and I see no need to mention it here.
Images
Link "Mug shot" in opening caption (someone might think this is just a rude remark) and the alt text could make it clear the photo is b&w as this is an important aspect of the imagery associated with the crimes.
The alt text for the Saddleworth Moor image is more interesting than the actual description, which could be a little more specific about the actual location (e.g. "looking towards..."). I realise that this may not be especially relevant to the murders, but I'm a geographer…
I think the Wardle Brook Ave caption would be better worded as per the image description i.e. "The empty space where 16 Wardle Brook Avenue once stood…." It reads oddly in that we are told that is a picture of a house, then that the house is not there.
Hollin Brown Knoll - my immediate thought on seeing the picture of the road, was - "which road?" Re the alt text, the road does not just run "from left to right in the distance", it also takes up much of the foreground.
" Part of Stalybridge Country Park". Why "part of" ?
Refs etc.
Citation 41 re UKCPI lacks a retrieval date.
What is it that is "official" about the Keith Bennett website?
Good work. BenMacDui 11:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CPI references shouldn't have a retrieval date; it's generated automatically by {{inflation-fn}}, and the prices in the article automatically update to reflect the current inflation rate. – iridescent 11:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. BenMacDui 12:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Brady admitted to taking the pornographic photographs". I've removed the word "pornographic"; as you say, it doesn't need to be repeated.
"I've rewritten to try and make it clearer that Brady had stolen the lead seals from the market and was caught trying to smuggle them out.
"He was also accepted for the Shawlands" "He also had a girlfriend". Neither 'also' conveys much." Agreed, I've removed the "alsos".
It's "Hoe Grain", I've fixed that.
I've changed "new town" to "overspill estate".
I've removed the Maxine Carr reference as I think you're right, it's more relevant to Carr than it is to Hindley.
"I've changed the Wardle Brook Avenue caption to "The empty plot where 16 Wardle Brook Avenue in Hattersley, once stood."
I've linked mug shot and added the fact that the photo is B&W to the alt text.
"Part of Stalybridge Country Park" is how the photographer described it. It's not known exactly where Hindley's ashes were scattered, so being more specific, as in "Lower Brushes Valley, in Stalybridge Country Park", might give the impression that her ashes were scattered at the spot in the picture.
Fixed the alt text and image caption for the Hollin Brown Knoll image. Parrotof Doom 21:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've been watching the expansion, tightening, and more tightening of this article. Good work all around. ceranthor 12:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There may be a problem with the following sentence in the lead: "The police were initially aware of only three killings—those of Edward Evans, Lesley Ann Downey, and John Kilbride." The first edition of Emlyn Williams's book Beyond Belief was published immediately after the convictions in 1965. In a postscript at the end of the book Williams draws attention to the Reade and Bennett cases and their similarities to those for which Brady and Hindley were tried. Hindley herself is quoted mentioning Pauline Reade. So the police were obviously aware of the other cases, though they lacked direct evidence that Reade and Bennett were dead or that their disappearances were linked to Brady and Hindley. Could the wording be revised? Brianboulton (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emlyn William's book was a semi-fictional work based on his own surmises and suppositions, most of which have proved to be unfounded and discredited. The facts presented here are based on the official police records. --MalleusFatuorum 00:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying Williams is a reliable source for the Moors Murders, but if he knew about two other missing children, surely the police did? Brianboulton (talk) 08:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The police certainly knew they were missing, but had no evidence to link them to the case, and did not know if they were alive or dead. Until you've got a body, or a confession, it isn't really correct to state that you're aware of a killing. It wasn't until 1987, when the confessions of Brady and Hindley were made, that the two children were tied to the case. Newspapers at the time mention that the police had a 'special interest' in those two children however, and that they searched on the moors for them - but still, they didn't know they'd been killed. Parrotof Doom 08:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact at the time that Williams' book was written the police actually suspected Keith Bennett's step-father of being involved in his disappearance, not Brady and Hindley, as the article says: "His {Keith Bennett's] step-father, Jimmy Johnson, became a suspect; in the two years following Bennett's disappearance, he was taken for questioning on four occasions". The Williams book can't be considered a credible source for anything. --MalleusFatuorum 11:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's true - they kept bringing him in for questioning, eventually Winnie Johnson went to the police station and insisted (pleaded) that they stop bothering him. She told them that if she suspected him of anything, she wouldn't still be living with him. After that, they left him alone. Parrotof Doom 11:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Most British people of my generation know a lot about these notorious murderers and their subsequent fates and, to be honest, I would not have read the article if it were not an FA candidate, but I am glad I did. I am very impressed with the prose, particularly the flow, which is very professional. But I am more impressed with the neutral point of view that is constant throughout the article. I imagine that this must have been difficult. There are a few very slightly odd expressions that I would not have chosen to use, but they give character to the article, so I'll let them be. This is the best prepared FAC I have seen this year. As I have said, I am very impressed. Graham ColmTalk 17:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm overwhelmed by your praise Graham. I think that because it was such a difficult topic to write about, Parrot of Doom and I had no option but to be very careful in our handling of it, and we were able to rein each other in whenever it became necessary. --MalleusFatuorum 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that I haven't slept well on more than a few nights, from reading some of the details of this case. Its been difficult to keep that tone out of my additions to the article. Parrotof Doom 20:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I quite understand. I also had some difficulty with some of the more gratuitous details of Rosewood massacre, and at times had to hold the topic with mental tongs away from myself. It's an odd mix: feeling or sensing pain helps my writing, but it's often so disturbing that better writing just may not be worth it. --Moni3 (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I raised this same question myself at one point, but the consensus as I recall was with the statement on the web site: "We are proud to be on the recommended reading lists of many university and college courses around the world, and are regularly used by TV and film companies conducting research. We are delighted to be acknowledged in many leading crime books." It appears to be accurate, and is probably a good resource to be listed as an external link. There's nothing that can't be sourced elsewhere anyway.
I always take "praise about us" statements on particular websites with a very large grain of salt, so I'd be happier to see those praises from the original sites. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I've replaced with dead tree sources. --MalleusFatuorum 20:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - I reviewed this article for GAC, and with a few exceptions my main thought was "why isn't this at FAC already?" An excellent article with (to turn a phrase) a distinguished editorial pedigree :P. Ironholds (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice article. Neutral and interesting throughout, even to us Yanks. Good job, both of you. Tex (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well written and fucked up. By coincidence I read this article some months ago before the earnest effort to improve it. It has grown quite well since then and may the forces of sanity be with you both when this gets on the main page. If Hindley and Brady have any kind of reputation similar to Ted Bundy, there will be no mercy on written language representing what they did. --Moni3 (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this FAC passes I think we'd be quite happy never to see this article on the main page. You wouldn't believe the obscenities that were scibbled in some of the books I got from the library over the pictures of Brady and Hindley. TFA would be a nightmare I think. --MalleusFatuorum 12:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fine article - bravo to the authors. Murder of James Bulger desparately needs as much attention as this article has been given.
I want to support. However, given that this article also stands as the biography of Myra Hindley and Ian Brady (following the recent AFD) I am not convinced that all of the relevent details from their separate articles been merged here. In particular, I am unhappy at the omission of the controveries regarding The Smiths's "Suffer Little Children" and Marcus Harvey's "Myra" (see Sensation (exhibition)). There is some relevant discussion on the talk page, but in my opinion both of these are notable and important, and the article is not "comprehensive" without them; neither of them is the dreaded "In popular culture". -- Hyphen8d (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think its probably a good idea to include a link to the talk discussion, which better summarises how the two main editors (of which I am one) have approached the situation. Parrotof Doom 20:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, I think punk band The Moors Murderers also deserves a mention - they intended to shock, like Harvey, but in a rather less sophisticated manner. The widepread visceral public reaction to inappropriate reference to the murders can and should be mentioned. -- Hyphen8d (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Myra Hindley, by the way of her mugshot, has become an iconic character. This article mentions little on her impact and public perception. There is nothing on the Sensation exhibition - which evoked an outcry even when it appeared last year on an Olympics promotional video, nothing on Jane Kelly, or on other depictions in art or media. Mentioning them in this article, may give it undue weight, so I would suggest that it belongs on the Myra Hindley page. Only that doesn't exist due to the AFD. Right now, there is no suitable article to drill through their depictions in contemporary culture - we can do better. - hahnchen 21:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that the Sensation article ought to link to here (as it does), not necessarily vice versa. The strength of feeling is already adequately covered in several places in the article, so I see no reason to labour it yet again with the beginnings of an In popular culture trivia section. I wouldn't object to a link in a See also section though. --MalleusFatuorum 22:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where does one draw the line? In my view, between icons and bands like The Moors Murderers, and the murders murderers and victims. Parrotof Doom 23:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is barely a mention of their media depiction, or the persistence of their notoriety in contemporary culture. Hindley has been depicted multiple times in artwork, and still generates controversy. A link in the "see also" section provides absolutely no context, the reaction to pieces shows the lingering press and public sentiments over the case, and over the person. How the public reacts, and how artists interpret the acts are important - the aftermath is as important as the background, culture is not trivia. It's possible that detailing that would give in undue weight in this article, in which case splitting off Myra Hindley, or creating a new article, may be appropriate. If a reader wanted to find out how this crime and their perpetrators were interpreted by the press and by the art world, they'd have to search through many different articles, and piece things together themselves. That is a bad solution. - hahnchen 19:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Their media depiction in newspaper reports is already covered; what you're talking about is an X in popular culture section, which ain't gonna happen, for reasons already explained. I feel so strongly about this that I would rather see the article fail than be trivialised in that way, and I believe I speak for Parrot Doom as well. --MalleusFatuorum 19:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The notoriety of the case stems from the fact that they sexually abused and murdered children, that one murderer was a woman (almost unheard of back then), and that the woman repeatedly appealed for her freedom. There are many more important elements of this case than a minor furore caused by an artist's work—such as the long-term effects on the families of the murdered children. Compared to the gravity of the crimes, an artist's work is trivial, and is but a tiny footnote in the story, and one that IMO barely deserves mention. A much more important facet, and one which is barely covered because I haven't yet got the source material, is the 1977 BBC discussion on Hindley's release.
What relevance does the art world have, to this case? If its so relevant, then mention this case in the art world articles - culture, generally, may not be trivia, but it certainly is here. I very much doubt that the reader will be left wondering what the social impact of these crimes was, after reading the cited articles linked from the Aftermath section. Parrotof Doom 19:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does an expanded section on their depictions in the media and in art "trivialise" the article? How does it reduce the impact of the crime? If anything, showing that their memory still persists in popular consciousness reinforces its gravity. And The Moors Murderers does link to this article, but you're suggesting that anyone wanting to find out about the public reaction should resort to Special:Whatlinkshere. People don't generally think like that, they're not all wikigeeks. As an aside, if the 1977 BBC debate is so important, and you've not seen it - how can this be comprehensive?- hahnchen 21:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't reinforce its gravity. What it does do is detract from the enormity of these crimes. You might as well ask why the Barack Obama article does not contain a link to every single mention of him by a notable public figure. Its an editorial decision that Malleus and I took, and we're standing by it. We made a decision to limit the impact to those people directly affected by the crimes. Adding information about barely-notable punk bands and artists just because they decided to exploit the case for their own ends isn't something we want to do, and nothing is going to change my opinion on that.
As for your final point, I find it facile. If you expect me to pull a 32-year-old BBC live broadcast that contains Lord Longford, contributions from family members including Ann West, and also a supporter of Hindley who was later betrayed by her confession—out of a hat and comment on its content, well what can I say to that, except I'm not perfect. But I'm trying, and that's all that can be asked of me. You're welcome to try also. Parrotof Doom 22:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"... nothing is going to change my opinion on that". Nothing is going to change our opinion on that. Support or oppose I really don't care, I just want this article to be the best it can be. If the choice is add an In popular culture section or else I'll oppose then so be it. It just ain't gonna happen. --MalleusFatuorum 22:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[e/c] I don't understand the reluctance to mention the influence of the murders on, inter alia, music and art, when the article already includes references to two televisiondramas. As I mentioned above, adding a sentence or two about The Smiths and Marcus Harvey - or indeed The Moors Murderers - does not amount to adding a full "In popular culture" section. It should be possible to weave them in sympathetically; something like:
The sadistic murders and their perpetrators have become a prime examplar of 'evil' in modern Britain, triggering strong reactions of offence and disgust when they have been referred to in contexts that may be considered inappropriate or disrespectful to the victims. Hindley's striking mug shot from 1965 was published repeatedly in the media until her death.[97] The popular song "Suffer Little Children", released by The Smiths in 1984 to commemorate the murders, caused a brief media controversy until the mother of one of the victims voiced her support for the band. Other artists have deliberately employed the notoriety of the murders to shock their audience, as with the short-lived punk band The Moors Murderers in 1977-8, and Marcus Harvey's large portrait of Myra Hindley, created from the handprints of children, which had to be temporarily removed from display at the Sensation exhibition at the Royal Academy of Art in 1997 after it was attacked in two separate incidents on the opening day.[98]
This will need references, of course - the two books linked above are a start - and the language could no doubt be improved, but this should not be disrespectful. There is plenty of interesting discussion of the cultural impact of the murders in Crime and punishment in contemporary culture.[99]
In any event, the repeated use of Hindley's mug shot in the media is something that should be noted. Some references describe it as the "face of evil". -- Hyphen8d (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're looking at this arse about face. The murders had absolutely no influence on music or art. Period. None. Sure, Morrissey wrote a song, and somebody else painted a picture that got vandalised, but that's hardly any kind of a "legacy". Did the murders change or indeed have any effect at all on either music or art? Clearly not. The televised accounts of the murders are accounts of the murders, just as are the books in the Further reading section, not the work of publicity seeking artists. --MalleusFatuorum 19:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be saying that it would be inappropriate to discuss cultural influences or artistic depictions of (for example) Myra Hindley and her iconic mug shot in this article, because it is only a minor facet of the murders. That is what I suggested at the AFD, but the biographical articles were merged into this one anyway. If we are not going to have an article on Ian Brady and Myra Hindley separate from this article on the murders, then this is the only place to discuss the cultural impact of the murders and the perpetrators, and all the things that go along with them (what they said, how the looked, how people reacted, media depictions, and so on).
The fact is the murders have had a palpable cultural impact. Morrissey was inspired to write a notable song commemorating the murders, and a notable punk band was deliberately named The Moors Murderers - and Marcus Harvey painted his painting - because of the murders. All of these things came about as a result of the murders: that is a cultural influence. Here we have a book saying "In the 1970s the Moors murderers became cult figures for the alternative art and music scene"... and lots of discussion about Hindley's grotesque "iconicity". -- Hyphen8d (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. What I'm saying is that if the murders had a "palpable cultural impact" on Morrissey or Marcus Harvey, then that should be reflected in their articles, not this one. This article is about the murders, the murderers, their victims, their families, not about any particular artist's claimed motivations or inspiration. Does there not seem to you to be a clear disjunction here? Winnie Johnson and her family continue to search Saddleworth Moor looking for the body of her son, but you're bothered that a pop song isn't mentioned? Do me a favour. --MalleusFatuorum 20:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why the Brady article was deleted, but the argument that this is a reason to include the other material here is fallacious. By all means start a "cultural impact of the Moors murders" article if you think it important, but the subject in question here is one does not lend itself to a "popular cultural references" section and (whether or not the artistic value of the work concerned in different circumstances might merit it) many readers of this article would simply find such material grotesque. BenMacDui 21:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Brady article was deleted because it was pretty much an uncited copy of the Hindley article, which in turn was pretty much an uncited copy of this article. Your point is well made; if the murders have had a significant cultural impact, which I frankly doubt, then someone should get down to writing that article. That a song was written and a painting had some ink and a couple of eggs thrown at it doesn't equate to "significant cultural impact" as far as I'm concerned. --MalleusFatuorum 21:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is that, do me a favour? How does mentioning artistic interpretations, and the continued presence of the moors murderers in public consciousness diminish the plight of the victims? Should the Bombing of Guernica omit references to Guernica (painting)? Should we ignore the Muhammad Cartoons in Depictions of Muhammad? After all, they were the works of "publicity seeking artists". - hahnchen 21:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an FAC, not a UN debate, I believe that I've made it clear that I will not be adding any of the pop culture stuff you're demanding. If as a result you feel that this article fails the FA "comprehensive" criterion, and so oppose its promotion, then so be it. I'd rather that than trivialise it. --MalleusFatuorum 21:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with the nominators on this. Graham ColmTalk 13:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, me too - new "Popular Culture" is old "Trivia" writ large Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not asked for a section entitled "popular culture" - indeed, I have expressly said that I do not want such a thing, let alone "trivia". What I have suggested is that the short "Legacy" section could be made more comprehensive through the addition of an extra paragraph explaining how the events have been found expression in various forms of art, and expanding on the reference to Hindley being a "figure of hate in the national media". No-one has even commented on the paragraph that I suggested above to do that.
Even more important than The Smiths and The Moors Murderers and Marcus Harvey (which I accept some may consider grotesque - although something being grotesque is not a reason to exclude it as encyclopedic content) is some discussion of the impact of Hindley's mug shot. As I said above, there are plenty of sources calling the "face of evil": the ODNB says "A police photograph of her taken in 1965—showing a Medusa with peroxide-dyed hair and staring eyes—became an infamous symbol of evil." There is also the quote from The Sun - a pretty sure touchstone of public sentiment: "Myra Hindley is to be hung at the Royal Academy. Sadly it is only a painting of her."[100]
By way of comparison, it would be hard to image an featured article on Jack Sheppard (another criminal, but a popular hero rather than a pariah) that did not include some discussion of the engravings and plays based on his life. This just illustrates why we need a separate article on Hindley, where this sort of thing would be more appropriate. -- Hyphen8d (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The television programmes discussing this case are already mentioned. If you feel so strongly that this painting and song represent a significant cultural impact then I suggest that you get down to writing that Cultural impact of the Moors murders article, as suggested above. --MalleusFatuorum 21:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I only found a few minor problems:
In the lead: The body of a fourth victim, Keith Bennett,. This is confusing: Keith Bennett was actually the third victim. I understand what it is supposed to mean but still recommend dropping "a fourth victim,".
In the Aftermath
was attacked in the lift where she and David lived. I do not think that they lived in the lift.
He later remarried, and moved to Lincolnshire, with his three sons, Does this refer to the same marriage as On his release from prison, David Smith moved in with the girl who would later become his second wife, and won custody of his three sons. ?
Patrick Kilbride mistook Bill Scott's daughter, Ann Wallace, for Hindley. Is she his daughter from the first marriage?
I think the last two paragraphs in this section should be move into the previous section 'Hindley'.
It wasn't a race, and the wording doesn't imply anything about the chronology of the murders. The lead says "The murders are so named because two of the victims were discovered in graves dug on Saddleworth Moor; a third grave was discovered on the moor in 1987, over 20 years after Brady and Hindley's trial in 1966. The body of a fourth victim, Keith Bennett ..." The word "fourth" in that context clearly doesn't refer to the sequence of killings. --MalleusFatuorum 15:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it's a comprehensive look at the life of one of the members of the American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame. Sometimes the girls don't get their fair share of glory, but hopefully this won't be the case for Babs here. Copyedited by Malleus, who labored to work my prose into something decent. Any remaining problems with the prose are mine, I'm sure! While there may be some sources possibly touching on her life, I'm not aware of them, as I've consulted most of the available ones. She was a pretty decent race mare and went on to become an outstanding broodmare. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
One further bit... I promise the next one won't be a horse OR a bishop! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(I'll hold you to that. Fancy doing an album article?) In the meantime:
Source comments:
All links, dabs, sources check out, but:
Surely if you give the full citation in the references section, you don't need extraneous detail in the footnotes, only author surname and page number? See refs 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14.
I prefer to give the title, especially when there is more than one work by an author. It's the system I've used at FAC for quite a while (see... oh... Easy Jet, Go Man Go, Chicado V, Wilfrid, Gilbert Foliot, etc.). My feeling is that it helps to make it clearer what the work is that is being used. (oh, and no, the next one up is already set, just need the copyedit... and it's a person) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair dos. Final nitpick: AQHF should alphabetically come after AQHA. RB88 (T) 22:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. (And standardized everything to "American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA)" while I was there.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Nitpicks, really:-
*Can the "racehorse" and "races" repetitions in the first sentence be avoided, e.g. by: "Barbara L was a Quarter Horse who raced during the early 1950s, often winning against some of the best racehorses of the time."
*Earnings: I'm a bit concerned about the degree of spurious precision in the "current value" figure of $261,300. The earnings of $32,836 were accumulated over the six years 1949-55, so it is only possible to get an approximate current value. Your calculation is based on 1955, which is fair enough, but I think the "r" factor in the conversion template should be adjusted to -4, and the word "about" introduced. This would give "She earned $32,836 (about $370,000 as of 2024)" which I think is a bit more realistic. See also comments re later current values
I'll defer to Malleus here, as he's the one who adjusted the rounding values, not myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point Brian, I'll change it to -4 as you suggest. --MalleusFatuorum 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the one in the lead, you've done the one lower down. Both OK now. Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Unnecessary linking of American Quarter Horse Association in Early life section - just been linked in the lead
*"...dam, or mother, traced..." - "was traced"? (I don't know breeders' lingo)
:* Fixed, changed to "descended from" ("traced" is actually correct, it's genealogist/horse breeder terminology for "way back in the pedigree...") Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Lumpkin becomes "Lumkin" - which is correct? (Lumkin also in infobox)
Fixed, I can't spell. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Intrusive comma after "Green continued to race her". (The ref could be shifted until after the date)
Fixed, removed the intruding reference as it was an artifact from an earlier version. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*"Barbara L raced for seven years,..." I make 1949-55 six years. Possibly seven seasons?
Seven is correct. She raced in 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955. Years are inclusive in this manner (as they always would be....) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*"placed second in four..." → "was placed second in four"
Actually "placed" is correct. "Place" is a verb in this context (see Glossary of equestrian terms#P, and it's always better to use active than passive. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Foals' earnings: $1.77 million should be qualified by "about", for reasons stated earlier. My feeling is at that all the current values of earnings in the second and third paragraphs should be rounded and described as approximate.
These are not major issues and should easily be fixed, to give a nice, compact article. Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: All my concerns quickly attended to (I like that). There could be a few more "abouts" and roundings of the values in the foals' earnings section, but otherwise no problems. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Media review - No issues. NW(Talk) 22:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Read through the entire article and saw no concerns at all. Short but comprehensive for the topic, and as might be expected by now, all of the sources are top-notch. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've got a few minor suggestions, but they don't hold me back from supporting:
You spell out American Quarter Horse Association in both the lede and first paragraph ... do you feel this is necessary?
The listing of race locations is very confusing. I'm uncertain if some of these locations are with their states or if the states are given as separate locations. I've put semicolons where I think they should go, but please check them to make sure I'm not in error. I strongly suggest alternating commas and semicolons. Forex: "Raton in Albequerque, New Mexico; in Colorado; ..."
I'm not sure the definition of "seconds" allows its use in the sense of finishing second. I'd suggest rewording this.
I gave it a quick copy edit, but please don't hesitate to revert any of the changes if you've got a good reason. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cleared up the first two, but "seconds" is indeed correct there. The copyedit was fine, nothing got distorted. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:51, 30 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.
Of all the articles I have worked on, I am most proud of this one. I originally intended to complete the article by April 2008, but the sheer amount of research necessary pushed the date out just a bit ;) The Battle of the Alamo is probably the most famous event in Texas history, and I suspect most people have at least heard of it. For this article I consulted both the first full-length book written about the battle as well as the most recent research available plus lots of what was written in between. It amazed me to see how much of what I learned in school was inaccurate or POV. Please put aside any preconceptions you might have of what happened and enjoy this comprehensive overview of what actually occurred. Much thanks to User:Awadewit, User:Ealdgyth and User:Oldag07 for their very helpful comments in the October peer review. This is a long article, so thank you in advance to all reviewers who make their way through it. Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources, links, dabs All fine. A shining example to all, boss. RB88 (T) 17:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded a new version and added the source information. Thank you. Karanacs (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks so good, I am likely to support, but have not gotten past the LEAD yet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "of" because it is unnecessary. "Mexican" and "border region" are both used as adjectives. Karanacs (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of is only redundant if the entirety of the Texas republic is considered Mexican border region. Otherwise it is necessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've hit the nail on the head - Texas as a whole was considered a border province. Karanacs (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Mexican forces had left behind 19 cannon, including an 18-pounder, which Jameson installed along the walls." - cannons should be plural.
"Cannon" is both plural and singular. Modernist pointed out a few instances in the text where "cannons" had been inserted and I've removed those so that the article is consistent. Karanacs (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now fixed. Karanacs (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Modernist. Tony, I don't usually edit on the weekends (beginning Friday afternoon), and it often takes me all day Monday to catch up on my watchlist. I promise I wasn't ignoring you! Karanacs (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind that FAC isn't a vote, and generally rationales are expected to accompany votes. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 05:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is the WP:LEAD so wordy. At 3388 characters it seems to long by simple measure and seeing redundant use of a phrase like "On Santa Ana's orders"" and other overly verbose uses, I can't help but think the lead could be cut down 5-10% fairly easily.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wordiness is one of my flaws; thank you for calling me on it. I've trimmed the lead by about 15%. I could possibly trim a little more, but I'm hesitant to do so unless you (or others) feel it is not focused enough as is. Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's about time! --Vasyatka1 (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is very good (thanks!). A few problems:
The alt text for File:Fall-of-the-alamo-gentilz 1844.jpg lacks what I see as the essence or gist of that image, which is the feeling of low walls in a shallow valley overlooked by rolling hills. That essence isn't described (and isn't really needed) in the adjacent text; could you please add it to the alt text?
Generally speaking alt text should not contain proper names as they cannot be verified by a non-expert who's looking only at the image, and anyway they're just repeating what's in the caption. Could you please reword/remove the following proper names from the alt text: "Long Barracks"; and "Mexican" and "Texian" in the phrase "dead Mexican and Texian soldiers".
Thanks for the review - I am still learning how to write alt text and it is much harder than it seems. I've made the updates you requested. Karanacs (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, it looks good now. (For me, writing alt text was a bit like riding a bicycle: there was an initial learning curve that was intimidating, but now that I'm over the hump it usually goes pretty smoothly.) Eubulides (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm a little confused by Antonio López de Santa Anna - was he a General or was he the President of Mexico? Or both? When did he storm the Alamo or mess with the constitution (dates?) it looks like first he was the president and messed with the constitution, and then he was the general who stormed the Alamo...Modernist (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Santa Anna was a general who became president and, while in office, led the army against Texas. I've added the date of the revocation of the Constitution to put that in better context, but I'm not sure how to clarify Santa Anna's roles better. I could add a footnote mentioning his previous military service? Do you have a better suggestion on how to make it clearer? Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion The confusion is compounded in the second sentence of the lead. Perhaps you should say: Following a twelve-day siege, Mexican troops under General Antonio López de Santa Anna, the president of Mexico launched an assault on the Alamo Mission in San Antonio de Béxar (modern-day San Antonio, Texas). - without the bold...Modernist (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added President of Mexico to the lead, and thanks for adding the 1835 date. I'm still reading the rest...Modernist (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks good to me...Modernist (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
The numbers in the info box don't add up with 2 survivors from a strength of 182–260 we have 182–257 killed ? should the casualties be 180–258 ?
Most Americans, however, are more familiar with the myths spread by many of the film and television adaptations, including the 1955 miniseries Walt Disney's Davy Crockett: King of the Wild Frontier and John Wayne's 1960 film The Alamo. - If you going to lave this in it need a cite --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was one additional man who may or may not have escaped (that's mentioned briefly in casualties). That's how the sources get to 260. The other fact is cited in the body of the article, but I can cite it in the lead as well. Karanacs (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review:
Not sure about File:Alamo texas.jpg, architectural works may be photographed in the USA and the photographs reused without permission, but other works of art may not.
File:San Antonio 067.JPG I suspect is old enough to have its copyright expired (if it ever qualifies for one in the first place), but a confirmation of its date would be handy.
I haven't checked alt text, only copyright status. Stifle (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with the rules about structures, so I will bow to your wisdom. If you think any (or all) of these images are inappropriately licensed I'll take them out.
I have no more information on the first image than what is on the image display page (and I assumed since it was on Commons it was okay).
San Antonio 067.jpg - this urn was built after 1939; I am not sure when.
I've nominated the first image for deletion; the other two would appear to be fine due to {{PD-Pre1978}}. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Stifle. I've replaced the lead image for now. Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One minor thing I just wanted to point out that Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier specifically refers to a 1955 film compilation of three episodes of the miniseries. The miniseries debuted in 1954, though the episode "Davy Crockett at the Alamo" did air in February 1955 (according to Disney A to Z). Zagalejo^^^ 07:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another source, from the American Film Institute. According to the AFI and the Disney book, the miniseries itself is simply called "Davy Crockett". Zagalejo^^^ 08:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the article back to your preferred wording, so that it is referencing the miniseries. Thanks for catching that! Karanacs (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My previous edits weren't totally correct, so I made a few adjustments. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Zagalejo^^^ 20:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional support Support
("Provisional support" just means that I haven't read the entire article yet, but like what I've read.)
The main text (post-lead) is nicely done. It has enough details to keep us on our toes and the narrative flows nicely. However, the lead will likely be confusing to readers unfamiliar with the history. One reason for this, of course, is that San Antonio, in March 1836, was in an unsettled time (no pun intended). It was formally still in Mexican Texas, but one from which all Mexicans had been driven out in December 1835. (Britannica, for example, begins its narrative in 1835 and it can then proceed in a linear fashion.) In a lead the author has to mention the pivotal event first and this creates a bit of a dilemma, if they are also trying to be sensitive to the needs of unversed readers. I've mentioned some of these things in the detailed comments, Talk:Battle_of_the_Alamo#F.26f.27s_detailed_FAC_comments_on_the_text, I've just left on the article's talk page.
Could we also have a higher resolution map or plan of Alamo? There is one hi-res one at the Texas State Legislature Web Site. Not sure, though, if it is old enough to be uploaded as PD-US-1923. The author McArdle (gifted the collection in 1927), but the sketch was very probably done much earlier. It has the Long Barracks, the Low Barracks, and the palisades clearly marked. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Fowler, I'll work my way through your prose suggestions soon. The McArdle collection is PD (he died before 1923). I saw that drawing, but I thought it was pretty messy (I can't read most of the handwriting) and didn't know if it would help. Let me think about whether I can create a custom diagram based on that (images are not my strength). Karanacs (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added my remaining comments on the article's talk page. Changing to support. Congratulations on writing an informative and enjoyable article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented many of Fowler's suggestions, as noted on the article talk page and his talk page. Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Small note. As part of the FAC, I suggest double-checking the accuracy and completeness of List of Alamo defenders. While working on Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people, I (and others) have created numerous redirects to that list. Many individuals listed on the Find-A-Grave website are Alamo defenders who seem to be otherwise non-notable. That being said List of Alamo defenders also includes links to a dozen biographies for more prominent Alamo participants. There are most likely a few more individuals for which a separate biography is warranted and these should be identified (say on the list's talk page). It's also quite possible that some members of the list already have an article even though the list has no link to it. I know that this FAC is really about the Battle of the Alamo article but the list is so closely tied to it that we should make sure it also meets basic quality standards. For the same reason, it makes sense to verify that Category:Alamo defenders and {{Battle of the Alamo}} are accurate and complete. Pichpich (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The list of defenders article needs much, much work. I started on it ages ago and got distracted. I am intending at some point to attempt to bring that to featured list quality, but not any time soon. In response to your post, though, I scanned the list just now, and I suspect that at most there are two individuals who don't have their own articles and may justify them (one of those Anthony Wolf, has had the article previously deleted; as for the other, William Ward, I'm not sure if this is the same man as William Ward (soldier)- more research is needed). As far as I know, the template is as comprehensive as it should be - I chose the most well-known individuals to list, not all who have individual articles. Karanacs (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. My only concern was to make sure that the list was accurate: the rest can wait of course. As for the template, I think a link to List of Alamo defenders or to Category:Alamo defenders would be a meaningful addition for readers. I just compared the bluelinks on the list with the contents of the category and added the category to George Washington Cottle and Isaac Millsaps. I also found three slightly problematic cases but since I have no expertise on the subject I'll leave you to decide how to resolve them. One interesting case is Moses Rose who is included in the category but not in the list. It's a tricky situation since he apparently left the battle but he might need to be added to the list. The same sort of problem applies to Juan Seguín who appears in the category but not in the list. As for George C. Kimbell, there's currently a separate article but it should perhaps be replaced by a redirect. Pichpich (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The list of defenders is linked from the template; it is shown as "Defenders" in the left column; a few of the more notable people are listed to the right. The list is not complete or entirely accurate at this point. As you mention, several of the survivors have been omitted, and I believe that others who died during the battle are also omitted. There has been a lot of relatively recent research on who was actually at the Alamo, and I haven't finished reading enough of it to go back to this article. Karanacs (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. (By the way, none of the above should be taken as an opposition to FA status for the article) Pichpich (talk) 19:31, 28 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.
After a peer review and some tweaks here and there, I think that this article meets criteria, natch. Read on if you want to learn about how you make a walking cybernetic being with clammy grey skin and a mechanical spine sexy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Though I've done some editing on article) , Images (both non-free and free) appear to be fine, but we need alt text on them. I tried on the poster image for a start. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The other ones should all have alt text... can't believe I forgot about the infobox one though, thanks! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TrekMovie is generally blog-formatted, but it's the largest independent Star Trek news site according to the Chicago Tribune.[104] Either way I think both contributors used meet WP:SPS. John Tenuto, in addition to serving as merchandise editor at the site, is a professor of sociology whos pop-culture-inspired courses have made something of a splash;[105] Anthony Pascale is editor-in-chief, has been quoted widely by the more mainstream media[106][107][108] and is apparently close enough to the franchise-keepers that he recorded audio commentary for the Blu-ray release of First Contact. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. The prose is mostly good. Promising candidate. I haven't scoured through the whole article, but count me as a Support as long as it's sifted through for MoS and the odd improvement to the prose.
Revert if you wish, but I am certain 1996 in film under "See also" will attract many more clicks that 1996 at the opening, which is "hidden", and worse, looks like a plain year-link. See WP:LINKING. Apart from that, the linking technique is excellent.
First para is about release, cast, award, etc. Then it bolts straight into a one-sentence summary of the plot. Can this be integrated smoothly into the second para? The paras need easy themes—hold the readers' hands through this.
"The script necessitated the creation of"—English can be ugly, and most of this is reasonably well written. How about "required"?
"collaborated to create": c ... c sounds; even "worked together to create", or "collaborated to make". Not sure these are the answer, but there's a better way somehow.
"Commenced". Plain and simple (i.e., Germanic): "started", or even "began".
Could to to be avoided in "moved to new sets to film ship-based scenes" by saying "moved to new sets for the ship-based scenes"?
"While Picard offers himself to the Borg in exchange for Data's freedom, Data refuses to leave." Not simultaneously, but "Although Picard ...".
The bullet list of cast members comes as a surprise. Can we have a sentence that leads smoothly into it? This is especially the case because each element in this list is just a nominal group.
Image sizes: my slight enlargements OK? Reduce if you don't like it, but a little larger than default would be good.
Sovereign-class image: ooh, bit wobbly with the copyright? Has anyone checked it? I'm glad that one is small. Please consider rationing the text in the caption, which wraps down and down. See MOS.
I think I've made all your recommended changes or attempted to. It didn't seem like the plot made any more sense in the second paragraph, but I reworded the beginning of it so it hopefully fits better; I also cut down the image caption a bit. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:S08-first contact borg queen assembled.ogv is certainly interesting. I think it meets the NFCC, but I would recommend slicing off the last two seconds of the video and perhaps removing the sound; they don't particularly add anything to the article.
File:RonaldDMoore.jpg. Normally I would be a bit skeptical of this, but I think we can assume that User:Cbrown1023, of all people, sought out his father's permission before uploading and licensing this.
I know very little about ICBM silos' security protocols, but it seems very unlikely that a Wikipeidan managed to get access to and take File:Tucson05 TitanICBM.jpg. What are your thoughts?
On the silo, it's been decommissioned for years and is a museum now, it's pretty easy to snap[109] so it's not like there are any state secrets :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I have moved it to commons and cleaned it up. Images look good. NW(Talk) 01:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is very well-written. I'm not much a fan of Star Trek, but I like how most of the article is more like a history piece than plot. One thing though, I was looking through and it doesn't look like all the numbers have nonbreaking spaces. Martin Raybourne (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NBSP not all units, etc. need a nonbreaking space, only items that belong together or would look awkward split; however you're right, I have added a few nbsp to the lead and other places I missed. Thanks for the review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the only Star Trek movie I've seen so far, and a really impressive article. igordebraga≠ 15:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another fantastic film article from David! Especially loving the video clip; it adds an exciting new element. I suspect that my concerns will be minor and related to copy-editing, so I will go through the article and copy-edit where needed. I wanted to ask, though, before this action and lending my support, would you consider removing the bold formatting from the actors and roles in the "Cast" section? While we have applied this formatting traditionally with film articles, it is not in line with MOS:BOLD, and a film article should be able to survive without the formatting. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed quotation mark issues per MOS:QUOTE#Quotation marks. I want to make another observation. I understand that you moved the "Cast" section's paragraphs up to address Tony's concerns, but by doing so, there is an odd focus on the minor roles before the major roles. I recommend moving the paragraphs back (except for the very first sentence) and possibly adding a couple more summary-style sentences to the first one. This way, readers can be led by prose into the list of major roles, then they can read prose of the minor roles. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for implementing the changes. I've stripped out the bold formatting and reorganized the cast section. Better? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is better. :) I will give it a fuller read-through (only skimmed in first place for quotation mark fixes), see if there are any additional minor issues to iron out, and lend my support. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SteveT • C Looking good so far. I participated in the peer review a couple of months back, so most of my issues with the article were resolved back then. A few items remain from that list, as well as a couple of new ones. Nothing major, and I anticipate supporting at some point. Let's get to it then:
"The television cast is joined by ... Academy Award-nominated actors James Cromwell and Alfre Woodard."—I don’t see the relevance of "Academy Award-nominated" here; it lacks context, and some might see it as a bit promotional.
"In the film's plot, the crew of the USS Enterprise travel back in time to the year 2063 to save their future after the cybernetic Borg conquer Earth by changing the past."—all that time-hopping makes it a little clunky, and to those unfamiliar with the franchise, saying "back" to 2063 might stir up a little cognitive dissonance without the context of TNG's setting. Perhaps something like, "the crew of the USS Enterprise travels from the 24th to the 21st century to save humanity after the cybernetic Borg conquer the Earth by changing humanity's timeline."
"Braga and Moore wanted to feature the Borg in the plot, while producer Rick Berman wanted a story involving time travel. The writers combined the two ideas, changing the time period the Borg corrupted to the mid-21st century after worries that setting the film during the European Renaissance would be too kitsch"—at the point it's mentioned, it still hasn't been established that the original time-travel pitch had the story set during the Renaissance. This could be resolved by moving it up slightly, so it reads something like: "The writers combined the two ideas; they initially set the film during the European Renaissance, but changed the time period the Borg corrupted to the mid-21st century after fearing the Renaissance idea would be too kitsch."
"The film made $92 million in the United States and an additional $57.4 million in other territories, for a theatrical run of $146 million worldwide"—149.4 million?
"... the Borg Queen has grafted human skin onto Data, giving him the sensation of touch to obtain the android's encryption codes to the Enterprise computer."—it might not be clear to someone unfamiliar with the film why giving Data "touch" would allow the Borg Queen to get Data's copy of the encryption codes.
"Stewart noted that Picard was more physical in the film compared to his usual role."—physical as opposed to ... incorporeal? Perhaps try "physically active". I might be parsing that wrong, but as Stewart has the role, not Picard, maybe "compared to his usual depiction" or similar would be a better fit.
"Frakes did not have much difficulty directing and acting at the same time, having done so on the television series."—as this is from the horse's mouth on the DVD commentary, it might be better to temper the claim by using "Frakes said he ..." He might have had a torrid time of it, but we'd probably never hear that from him (I wouldn't trust the TNG cast as far as I can throw them, after hearing them describe Stuart Baird as a bona fide genius during the pre-release promotion of Star Trek: Nemesis!)
Perhaps link to redshirt at the first mention, rather than the second?
"Ridley Scott and John McTiernan reportedly turned the project down. Stewart met with one of the potential candidates and concluded that 'they didn't know Star Trek'."—do you think the implication here is that the director Stewart met was Scott or McTiernan? I don't think that's your intention, so perhaps the link between the two statements could be weakened.
"The lion's share of First Contact's effects"—I'm sure a print encyclopaedia wouldn't use "the lion's share" when it simply wants to say "most of", but YMMV.
"Acting was conflictingly received."—right then, Mr Fuchs, I've twitchingly overlooked most of your omissions of the definite article, as I'm not one to try to run roughshod over personal preference, but my body simply won't allow me to let that one pass without having some kind of fit. So here it is.
And that's pretty much it; as I say, most of everything else seems to have been cleared up in, and after, the peer review. Nice work. SteveT • C 10:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've hit your above concerns; I added "about" to before $146 million because the sources are quite certain, it's most likely an error on the part of Box Office Mojo but I cannae' be certain (I don't have a better source anyhow). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As it's so prominent in the lead, it still produces a bit of a speedbump that I think readers will wonder over, even if they might not think to mention it on the talk page. Would it be better to instead summarise it more concisely as: "The film made $92 million in the United States, contributing to a theatrical gross of $146 million worldwide"? SteveT • C 09:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Another fine instalment in David's Star Trek film article series, and probably the most comprehensive single source available about the film's development, production and reception. On the trekmovie.com source questioned above—and left for independent reviewers to judge—I'm happy with its use due to its continued reference in the mainstream media and its contributors' credentials ([110], [111], [112], [113], [114]). The prose is generally very good—in fact I'd say it came to FAC in a better starting condition than David's other Trek film articles, which required a bit more work in this area (don't take that as a slur, David—it's meant to reflect the noticeable improvement in your writing at each successive FAC nomination). All images seem to comply with fair-use guidance, and as for the video—I'm delighted that this could be the first film FA to feature a fair-use clip of the film in question. To ensure Wikipedia's continued relevance, it must adapt to changing web technology, and our best articles will have to eventually reflect this. As such, I fully support its inclusion; it's a bold move, and one that I hope will pay off. Nice work yet again, SteveT • C 09:49, 2 October 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 comments from this article's first FAC have all been substantially addressed. The previous FAC seemed to suffer from a lack of editors interested in the subject willing to carry out reviews. Statement the purpose of transparency: I am intending to notify a number of editors I know to be interested in this area of electronics of the existence of this FAC. SpinningSpark 15:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Comments:
There is a strange pattern in Zobel' references - as if he stopped publishing between ca 1931 and 1950 (much longer than the WWII). Any clue? Is it only because of a limited selection in this article?
Zobel apparently was a Distinguished Alumni Award Recipient at Ripon. Given the meager personal info, I would add this to the article, briefly explaining what that meant (e.g. it seems there were only few recipients each year).
Suggest wikilinking: "conventional LC technology", "k-type" and "constant k" (both, as not everybody would know they are same).
"and good stop-band rejection of the constant k." is missing a noun.
The image "A harmonic analyser" is somewhat disconnected from the text and the term "harmonic analyser" is not clarified.
The above comments are from User:Materialscientist who seems to have accidently deleted his name in a subsequent edit. Yes. thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stopped publishing 1931-1950. The best of Zobel's work is undoubtedly 1920s and early 30s. I believe that he really did publish very little from this point onwards (as opposed to we just have not unearthed it), and what there is is rather trivial compared with his earlier ground-breaking work. I also have information that he married one Irene Staab Zobel (possibly this Irene S Zobel late in life, the couple having waited so long so that Irene was able to pursue her career without any stigma. It may well be at the point Irene ended her career, Otto suddenly found he had other interests. No reliable sources for any of this at the moment, so it can't go in the article.
Alumni Award. done
Wikilinking. done
Missing noun. I don't really agree that anything needs to be added. Giving a fuller quote, "Zobel overcame this problem by designing hybrid filters using a mixture of constant k and m-type sections. This gave Zobel the advantages of both: the fast transition of the m-type and good stop-band rejection of the constant k." shows that the context is set by the first sentence so there can be no possible ambiguity of the implied noun in the second. I tried various constructions to address the comment but they all seemed quite awckward to me. No objections, though, if someone else thinks they can improve the sentence.
I can't believe this didn't garner comments, he used to live near me! ;)
He first studied at Ripon College, where he received his BA in 1909. He then went to the University of Wisconsin and graduated with an MA in physics in 1910. - could we cite both sentences with one cite after the 1910, please?
In 1926, compelled by his work for AT&T, he moved to New York. - AT&T is used one sentence before, could this be replaced with the company or... the organization?
In 1934, he began working with Bell Telephone Laboratories (Bell Labs).[10] - this isn't a very well-structured sentence, reading the ones before it. How about He switched (think of a better verb, I'm not creative atm) to ... in 1934?
I think since this is an American article, the prose might be better off with american english. This is an arbitrary comment, it won't have any effect on the FAC.
Around 1923, Zobel's filter designs were reaching the peak of their complexity. He now had a filter section to which he had doubly applied the m-derivation process resulting in filter sections which he called the mm'-type. This had all the advantages of the previous m-type, but more so. An even faster transition into the stop-band and an even more constant characteristic impedance in the pass-band. At the same time one side would match into the old m-type, just as the m-type could match in to the k-type. Because there were now two arbitrary parameters (m and m') that the filter designer could adjust, much better end matching half-sections could be designed. A composite filter using these sections would have been the very best that could have been achieved at that time. However, the mm'-type sections never became as widespread and well known as the m-type sections, possibly because their greater complexity has deterred designers. They would have been inconvenient to implement with microwave technology and the increased count of components, especially wound components, made them more expensive to implement with conventional LC technology. Certainly, it is hard to find a textbook from any period which covers their design.[34] - Could the references be better distributed throughout this paragraph? ceranthor 23:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
American English. I agree this article should be in American English but have not done it myself because I would probably get it wrong. Are you willing to do this task? If not, I can try and find another editor. I will deal with the rest of your comments later in the week, no more time right now. SpinningSpark 22:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He first studied at Ripon College.... Not sure what the issue is here, that whole block of text was put in with this edit and all appears to be referenced to ref 7. Are you suggesting that ref 7 should be in the same paragraph twice, or that ref 7 may not cover all the claimed facts? (I am not able to read it online). SpinningSpark 19:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In 1926, compelled by his work for AT&T... and In 1934, he began working with Bell Telephone... both done.
Could the references be better distributed throughout this paragraph? I don't understand this request. The paragraph referred to has only one reference. SpinningSpark 19:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. Good luck with this article. ceranthor 21:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image check: Both images seem fine. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pursuant to a request from Spark, I've gone through a modified the article to American English. Truth be told, I didn't find large numbers of things needed correction — mostly an occasional "analyse" that became "analyze". I feel that that prose could use some more work in places, but I don't have time just now to do a more thorough review, or offer in-depth copyediting services. Kudos on the comprehensive research! Scartol • Tok 14:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article appears to meet all the FA criteria, though I couldn't say whether or not it is comprehensive (criterion 1b). I very much enjoyed reading it. --catslash (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support no glaring concerns on a single read through Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources checked at the first FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my biased opinion, I believe this article is the most thorough and up-to-date source of information on this mushroom genus/species that is available on the web or in print, and think it is ready to be vetted by the FAC crowd. Looking forward to hearing your suggestions for improvement. Sasata (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My initial reactions are that this article is beautifully illustrated (I use the lead image as my sign-on icon on Windows), but perhaps a little on the short side for an FA. I'll have a read through and see what jumps out at me.
I don't like the idea of an FA with only a single lead paragraph, even if the article is quite short...
Now two paragraphs and expanded. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is "North Africa" a place in the same way North America is? Would "northern Africa" not be better?
I think both are acceptable (see North Africa), but have changed it as I agree with your reasoning. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The type species of genus Rhodotus" It's the only species, so the "type species" mention seems a little odd.
This I've kept as is, as here I'm specifically referring to the historical designation of the type species. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Kühner and Romagnesi" Who? Link? Explanation? Full names?
Random mycologists who wrote something about the subject once. GGirl asked about this too; I'm going to hold off putting redlinks until I'm sure they have enough info to warrant articles. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: thanks Casliber for linking Romagnesi (I spelled it wrong when I searched for the name... duh) and creating a stub for Kühner. Sasata (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Besson"- again.
As above. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Pseudohiatuleae" No article? Surely it's notable- a redlink is not necessarily a bad thing.
Sure, I have enough info to start an article on this. Redlinked. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, I think the fact you have the mycomorphbox opposite the image of the young specimen, sandwiching the text, means that the placement is not MOS compliant. Doesn't bother me personally, but...
Damn mmbox cramping my style again! Made changes so that not all the text (only about 1/3 now) is sandwiched. If I hear the voice of an FAC director booming from the heavens above to fix it even more, I will try. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"nuclear large subunit" Sorry? Went way over my head.
Removed as excess detail. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Repetition of the word "clade", and the second is linked rather than the first.
Both fixed. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One sentence paragraph at the end of taxonomy.
Have now expanded to a new subsection in taxonomy. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Lentinula reticeps (Murr.) Murr." As he is known as "Murr.", do we not need to have a second period? Also, what's the deal with that authority? What's the difference between that and just "Murr."? Also, "(Peck.)"- why not just "Peck."?
GGirl asked about this too. Further investigation revealed that the 1986 Redhead paper I used as the source actually had the authority incorrect - it should be (Mont.) Murr. It was strangely satisfying to know I had found an error made by an experienced, widely-published mycological veteran :) Anyway, I think I've presented the synonymy and the authorities in that section in a more reader-friendly manner. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The gills have an adnate attachment to the stem, that is, broadly attached to the stem slightly above the bottom of the gill, with most of the gill fused to the stem; the gills are thick, packed close to each other, with veins and color similar to, but paler than the cap." That sentence doesn't read well. Also, there should be a comma between "than" and "the".
Fixed and done. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there no uses for this at all? No obscure chemicals? No witchdoctory medical stuff? The article feels a little incomplete without any discussion of uses. Is this species only really known for looking distinctive and the arguments about how to classify?
I've scraped my sources again. No "uses" nor bioactive compounds unfortunately, but I did expand the light requirements section, as I think this is what sets this species apart. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Rhodotus palmatus is saprobic, and obtains nutrients from decomposing organic matter." Tautology?
Reworded. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"basswood (genus Tilia), (Acer)," Rephrase? Not clear what this means.
Removed instances of Latin genus names for the trees and just linked the common names. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"by canopy." Should this be the canopy? Perhaps a canopy? It doesn't look right at the moment.
Reworded. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"spring to fall in the" I appreciate the article is in American English, but "fall" is not a word we, as Brits, are familiar with. Our article is entitled Autumn- is "Autumn" a term you use? It's a much prettier word :)
I did not know Brits didn't use "fall". Will use Autumn from now on. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Europe and Britain." Would we not count as Europe? "North America and Canada"?
Bring it up with Michael Jordan (not the bball player, the author of "Fungi of Britain and Europe"). Have reordered to put Britain in front of Europe—hopefully this will offend British sensibilities slightly less :) Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"West Germany" Again, western Germany? Germany? Or are you referring to it from when it was known as West Germany? Perhaps an update?
Good point. Now just Germany. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the area formerly known as the USSR," Ref? It looks odd without a ref on one of the entries.
"It has also been collected in New Zealand." Why separate? Is this a surprise?
No, a disjunct resulting from a prior add-on. Merged. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The species gained legal protection in Hungary in 2005." Very interesting- more info?
As you wish. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The 1993 National Environmental Status Report for the Baltic countries Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania report it as "extinct or probably extinct"." Just in those countries, I assume?
Reworded for clarity. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is possible to use a term regionally extinct, which is commonly used for such cases. It can be also written like this: ...it is considered by the Environmental Protection Ministries (a branch of government charged with implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity) to be regionally extinct reported as "extinct or probably extinct". --Snek01 (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After looking around a bit on the IUCN website, I agree with you. It appears "regionally extinct" is equivalent to "extinct on a regional Red List". Have added it to the sentence, thanks. Sasata (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"resurgence.[29][5]" Switch refs around so in order?
"field – such" That the right sort of dash? I think you used a different one above?
Changed to emdash. Before Wikipedia, I didn't know the difference between a hyphen and the dashes. Now the "corseted aesthetic" implied by emdash usage is growing on me. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure the light requirements stuff needs to have a section of its own- I'd be much more interested in a separate section discussing rarity, extinction and protection.
I've added some info to this section, so hopefully now you will think it warrants its own section. "Rarity, extinction and protection" is covered in the new final paragraph of distribution. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Cited text"- you obviously know academia better than me, but shouldn't that be a plural?
But there's only one text being cited? Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Index Fungorum genus listing"- perhaps "Rhodotus at Index Fungorum"? That's how we do it with music articles
I like that - will start using that format from now on. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In all, I feel the article is lacking something- compared to other FAs, which have discussions of uses, this one seems to focus on the biology of it. I'd love to see an expansion on the details about rarity, extinction, protection and so on, and any further details about edibility (or the lack thereof) or any other uses would be a big plus. J Milburn (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your comments again, they have been very helpful and have motivated me to look for more info to add. Your comments about the article "lacking" are well-received; I see this as an opportunity to guage what sort of quality/information availability is required for a fungal taxon FA, and perhaps this subject is on the borderline. While digging deep in the Google search results (~page 30) I found this Chinese paper which looks tantilizingly like it might have some interesting info I could add. Will contact a Chinese-speaking colleague about a translation. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, a couple more quick thoughts, mostly boring ref formatting issues-
"It was one of 35 species to gain legal protection in Hungary in 2005.[49]" Sorry to bring this up again, but what precisely does this entail? You're not allowed to pick it? Or what?
Shouldn't "Red list" be "Red List"? That's how our article on the subject capitalises it.
"it is considered "extinct or probably extinct"." By whom?
Perhaps the lighting requirements section should be a subsection of the habitat and distribution section? Seems it's mostly a discussion of where it fruits.
Can we have a link for the word "reitculations"?
"Rhodotus palmatus tends to fruit in cooler and moister weather" Perhaps refer to it as R. palmatus there?
Sorry to be a pain, but perhaps a few more links in the refs? If we have articles on any of the publishers, links would be useful.
"Vedett nagygombafajok Magyarorszagon. [Protected macrofungi in Hungary]" Is that a standard way to translate titles? I've not seen it before... Perhaps a note on the original language of the paper? There is a feature for that in our citation templates. There seems to be a bit of inconsistency about this in the refs.
Link hasn't formatted in ref 45. You need http:// before the www.
Ref 29, you don't need to mention MushroomExpert twice.
Ref 5- "van der Gaag H.". I work in a bookshop, and we would list him, as an author, as "Gaag, H____ van der". Of course, I'm not really familiar with your citation style.
Ref 31, "Rhodotus palmatus" seems like a more sensible page title than the current one.
Similar with ref 20- how about Rhodotus palmatus - Names Record" instead?
Ref 9, I take it there's no reference number? The ISBN of the journal world?
Not sure what you mean by "reference number", please clarify. Sasata (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed most of these suggestions above (except for the one clarification required). Have moved the light requirement paragraph into the Habitat and Distribution section like you suggested, and made a new section called "Conservation status". I like the change, for one thing, it lines up the final picture to the section that talks about phenotypic variations in fruit body appearance, so it fits nicely. Thanks for the attention to detail. Sasata (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I spent a couple hours tonight in the library and managed to find a couple more sources to add. Check out the new section on antimicrobial activity (the activity is weak, but at least the info is there now), and the new sentence discussing wood preference, and position in fungal succession. Sasata (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC) ... and another synonym, and a 1908 paper reporting its ability to produce chlamydospores. Sasata (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also couldn't resist adding a couple more photos (they look so cool), but let me know if you think it's too much. Sasata (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The photos look great, the anti-microbial information really adds to the article, love the conservation status section (and thanks for clarifying what the protection entails). My only criticism of the discussion of wood preference is the repetition of the word "wood". Sorry to pick at this sentence yet again, but "It was one of 35 species to gain legal protection in Hungary in 2005, making it a fineable offense to pick them." I assume that means one of 35 fungal species? J Milburn (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as all of my requests (even the picky ones) and more have been dealt with brilliantly during the FAC. I feel this is now a fantastic example of our best work. J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded to avoided repetitive "wood"; specified fungal species. Sasata (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Index Fungorum is published by CAB International, publishers of the "Dictionary of the Fungi", the "bible" of mycology, and the website is maintained and updated by professional mycologists. Mushroom Expert is published by respected author Michael Kuo; reviewers were ok with the use of this source in the last fungal taxon FAC. Sasata (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just to echo what Sasata said- Index Fungorum is almost like the OED of the fungi world, while MushroomObserver is a professional site well maintained by a published and respected mycologist. J Milburn (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Its range should go in the heading paragraph, if not sentence. Check out the other animal & plant FAs.
I have reworked the lead so that the range information appears in the 2nd sentence. Other tweaks were made in passing. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tangential - Circumboreal_region really needs a map. Might be worth posting to whatever wikiproject you are in.
Some of the pictures are mature specimens, taken looking down on the cap so that the stem isn't seen; others show the species in a young stage of development where the cap hasn't opened up yet. I've made the caption for the taxobox image more descriptive so the reader knows exactly what they're looking at.
"It is sometimes seen "bleeding" a red- or orange-colored liquid" - is it know why it does this? Is this special to this mushroom? This feels like a gun mentioned on the first page of a novel never to be heard from again.
These droplets are probably the result of whatever pigment is in the caps leaching out into the moisture that accumulates on the stem... but that's just my opinion, not written anywhere else that I know of. However, I did find a tidbit of info about a similar secretory phenomenon occurring in laboratory culture and have added that. Is that sufficient to whet your appetite? Sasata (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Characteristics section is pretty dense to a lay person like me. Not sure if it needs tweaking or not.
I tweaked it anyways. Have divided both macro- and microscopic characteristic subsections into 3 bite-sized paragraphs, and massaged the text within. Does it read better? Sasata (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Edibility" - If it's not poisonous it's edible, right? Is there any mention of it being poisonous?
It's edible in the sense the cardboard is edible. "Edible" in the mycophagological sense means "commonly used as an edible species", although of course there can't really be a clear distinction as tastes vary. This species is uncommon enough to not have had its edibility extensively tested and documented. I'll check the sources again and if one of them specifically says "non-poisonous" I'll add that. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though not mentioned in the sources it wouldn't take a hard leap to think that once dutch elm has wiped out a large amount of elms and they have completely decayed this mushroom will begin to lose range again. There may be a ref saying that?
I looked again, but did not find evidence of anyone making this logical supposition in print. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. Could you maybe move some of the discussion on cap color to Characteristics as well? -Ravedave (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now alluded to the variability in fruit body characteristics depending on light. Thanks for the support. Sasata (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - No problems (beautiful photos!). Awadewit (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great link... have added it to the cite. Also added "plate" in the page parameter, but that makes it show as "p. plate 216"... if anyone knows how to make that look nice, do tell. Thanks Snek, Sasata (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support and comment Another nice fungal article. Does FeSO4 assume too much, even with the wikilink, or would Iron(II) sulfate (FeSO4) be better - no big deal either way Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I've changed the sentence as you have suggested. Sasata (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and support (I'm sure all the below will be dealt with promptly. Nice article on a nice mushroom! Congrats.)
Molecular phylogenetics analysis has helped determine that Rhodotus is most closely related to genera in the Physalacriaceae.
Maybe link this sentence to the previous. The transition is a bit blunt. Maybe "More recently, molecular phylogenetics"
Sounds ok, changed. Sasata (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A 1986 paper reported that the species Pleurotus pubescens, first described by American mycologist Charles Horton Peck in 1891,[10] was equivalent to, and thus synonymous with Rhodotus palmatus.
The species is not synonymous, its the name.
Never thought of it like that, but you're right. Have corrected the semantics (next one too). Sasata (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the same publication, another synonym is Lentinula reticeps, a species described by William Alphonso Murrill in 1915
Same problem.
ornamentation
Does this deserve a link?
There's no appropriate link, hopefully sometime in the future the spore article will be FA and explain this nicely. Until then I've added parenthetically what spore ornamentation refers to. Sasata (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
core Euagarics clade
Could we have a plain English quick explanation?
Have now explicated what it means to be a member of this clade. Sasata (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
have a roughly spherical shape, with dimensions of 6–7.2 by 5.6–6.5 µm
Seems to be more of an ellipsoidal shape then, rather than spherical.
Actually it's subglobose, the mycological term for almost round, but with the length/width parameter not quite ellipsoidal. I use "roughly spherical" to avoid using the word subglobose. Sasata (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cheilocystidia
Link?
A link would lead to the cystidia article, which is already linked slightly before. Someday that article too will be much better written and I'll be able to link directly to a section in it. Sasata (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the number of dead elms (resulting from Dutch elm disease)
I find the bracketed information interesting. Maybe integrate in prose.
Took it out of the parentheses. Sasata (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fineable
Do we need link?
In the interests of avoiding overlinking, I've unlinked it. Thanks for your comments and support! Sasata (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the FA criteria. I took this article through GA and one FAC about a year ago. I disengaged after that, and User:BillTunell then put in 1250! edits during two more unsuccessful FACs. It's hard to say exactly why it wasn't promoted, but all the sources questioned and non-free images objected to have been removed. Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article is informative, well structured, and interesting. There are some writing and historical issues that I will bring up on the article talk page, but that I will summarize here. I'll leave it to others more knowledgeable to deal with sources and images. I did check for dabs with the tool, and there are none. My issues are dealt with. Nice article. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
*footnotes in lead?
[reply]
relating to CR movement and Robinson's career as a precursor to it
some word choices, wordiness, and wording issues
These are "generally" the issues I have. I'll bring up the specifics on the talk page and report back here. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nominator comments
From the last FAC nonmination, there appear to be two classes of outstanding issues:
(1) Non-free pictures. There are only two: the Satchel Paige pic (here)] and the Pasadena statue/memorial pic, now removed. I thought the latter would be non-controversial by now (there's an established guideline for pics of public statues), but I guess it isn't. The former I expected to be controversial, and I suspect that whatever the rationale, someone will always object to any non-free pic in an FA-nominated article.
I'll still argue for the inclusion of the Satchel Paige pic as the "significant" under criterion #8 of the policy on non-free-content). user:Jappalang, among others, has argued against its significance. Despite the fact that the picture has been removed from the current verison of hte aarticle, I'd like I'd like closure on the rule interprtetation from wikiadmisntrators if possible. Otherwise I consider it as a candidate for re-insertion later.
(2) Reliablility of sources. Basically this relates to my conversation with user:Giants2008 concerning reliability rules in the last nomination phase. The issue here is whether a claim that is otherwise referenced using a reliabe footnote can be supplemented with backup footnotes from less-reliable sources that nonetheless have some other rationale for inclusion. The way I read the rule, every claim within the article's text has to have at least one reliable citation. The scope of the issue seems to be down to about 5-6 footnotes, because I've previoulsy eliminated any footnotes that seemed worthless or merely duplicative. I think the only furtherchange I anticipate making here would be elimination of the SportMag.us biography footnotes. BillTunell (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took out all the refs that Giants2008 objected to, including the sportmag one. User:DCGeist and User:Eubulides have also adjusted the refs a ton (thanks guys). Here's the diff. Apparently we've made 142 edits since. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've done a lot of work, which I'm still reviewing -- but so far it looks good. One request: can we re-insert the BlackFivesBlog citation? Although it's a blog, it's well-researched with unique content. user:Giants2008 didn't have a problem with it necessaily, he just asked for a defense of the blog content, which I later provided. BillTunell (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Robinson's daughter, Sharon, became a midwife, educator, director of educational programming for Major League Baseball, and the author of two books about her father." appears to be sourced to wikipedia articles?
Current ref 191 (Announcement of the recipients...) lacks a publisher
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the Larry Lester source is reliable. He has founded a negro league museum and worked for the Baseball Hall of Fame. His list of novels (see here) about black baseball is also very extensive. I've removed the two school refs, and I'll remove the mrbaseball.com one as well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would not remove the Mr.Baseball reference. The website is not the source; the source is the article author, Jules Tygiel who, like Lester, is an accomplished biogrpaher of Robinson. It just happens to be hosted on Mr.Basebnall.com.
The Sharon Robinson sentence is not sourced to a wikipedia article. It's sourced to the books referenced in the sentence, and an independent newspaper artice. I've inserted additioanl language ot make that clear.
I don't really care about the school footnotes, but for the purpose for which they are cited (i.e., confirming the existence of the elementary schools referenced), there is nothing unreliable about them. The schools exist. BillTunell (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you're not citing to the actual school website, you're citing to some sort of aggregator site, so the reliability or unreliability comes into play. As for Mrbaseball, do they have permission to host that information on their site? How do we know they reliably transcribed it? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the school stuff. I found at least one of the actual schools website, but it looked kinda funky. We add some schools with better refs probably, if we care. I removed the mrbaseball ref and replaced it with a book by the same author. It said exactly the same stuff. I think the mrbaseball site was just taking excerpts from his book. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just the missing publisher now. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is really hopping. I'm not sure which ref is missing its publisher. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was ref 191 (Announcement of the recipients...) earlier, but that bit in the parenthesis gives the first part of the ref. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say? Once in a while you come across an article that has an exceptional subject, is fact-filled, and has a narrative that flows, the happy confluence of a reviewer's dream. Although the ending perhaps was a little abrupt, and here and there I noticed a few speed-bumps in the prose (and one spelling mistake), pointing them out now would be bad form. I'll leave a post on the talk page later sometime. Yours was one of the few articles on Wikipedia that I've enjoyed reading start to finish. Let me offer the authors my congratulations on a rare effort and hope you receive your FA star very soon. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And if there are any spelling errors left please don't be shy in pointing them out. BillTunell (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – It makes me happy to see that the sourcing quality is much better this time around. I'll offer a few prose nit-picks to help in that respect, and would like to go through the article myself at some point. Wil probably wait until after an image review to support, given the questions asked in the past.
I suggest placing MLB in parentheses after the first use of Major League Baseball. This will avoid any possible confusion regarding the initials.
In a similar vein, consider spelling out MVP in the award. Sports fans would know what an MVP is by heart, but we can't assume that all of our readers will.
Watch for overlinking. Early in the body, I see a link to gang (a common word) and multiple links to Matthew Robinson where just one would do. A couple later examples of unnecessary repeat links are the Los Angeles Bulldogs and Kansas City Monarchs.
Third paragraph of Military career: I don't understand what Robinson not smoking has to do with the charges made by the commander. Was a smoking-related charge among those not mentioned?
Negro Leagues: "began to scout the Negro leagues for a possible addition to the Dodgers' roster." Capitalize "leagues"?
Wikipedia does not capitalize the "L" in Negro leagues, unless it in some way is incorporated into a proper name (like "Negro League All-Star Game"). See this discussion and WP:MOSCAP. The Negro leagues were never unified into a single organizaton and therefore are not referred to collectively as a proper noun. This treatment is also in line with the usage at Negro league baseball. So I've changed this back to the original usage. BillTunell (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The offer allowed Robinson to leave the Monarchs with their grueling bus rides behind". If "with" was replaced by "and", or "along with", the flow of this sentence would be much better. Try it and see for yourselves.
Skipping to 1947: "Greenberg had advised him that the best way to combat the slurs from the opposing dugout was to beat them on the field." The way this reads, it sounds like "them" is in reference to the slurs, but I know this isn't the intention. Perhaps "the slurs from opposing players"?
One quick referencing flaw I found while doing some formatting work: The Baseball-Reference Bullpen (reference 241) is a wiki, and therefore does not qualify as a reliable source, unlike the rest of the Baseball-Reference site. A different reference will be needed for the intentional walk note. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peregrine, One of the things I was disappointed in from BillTunnel's efforts was the inability to find information about the Robinson-Walter O'Malley and Robinson-Rickey relationships mentioned at O'Malley's article. Do you have any information in this regard?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, but I could probably add some if you think that it fits in this article without going into to much detail. This has a lot (as you probably know). I didn't happen to run into much on him when I was doing the GA research, so I don't know how important it is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the link you posted, O'Malley should be mentioned in the Robinson article in some way. The two bios should mesh on issues of there relationship to a degree if both are reliably sourced.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does mention him. It says "Robinson's Hollywood exploits, however, did not sit well with Dodgers co-owner Walter O'Malley, who referred to Robinson as "Rickey's prima donna".[141] In late 1950, Rickey's contract as the Dodgers' team President expired. Weary of constant disagreements with O'Malley, and with no hope of being re-appointed as President of the Dodgers, Rickey cashed out his one-quarter financial interest in the team, leaving O'Malley in full control of the franchise." I can certainly add more, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony: I'm still nto sure in understand your comment. But if the information you're talking about is already contained in the Walter O'Malley article, then we shouldn't be duplicting the same content in another article. If it's different content then I'm not sure what you want to add. At the end of the day, IMO, what you're suggesting is a talk page topic (future improviement of the article) not an FAC review topic (review of the current article under FAC criteria). BillTunell (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that paragraph. That is sufficient for this topic. My primary issues in prior FACs have all been addressed. I am now able to support.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with comments
All in all this is a great article; however, there are a few things that are lacking a source-
He single-handedly kept the Dodgers in the race for the 1951 pennant. During the final game of the regular season, against Philadelphia, he made a season-saving defensive play in the 12th inning and then hit a game-winning home run in the 14th. This forced a three-game playoff against the Giants.
The graves are located about a half-mile south of the Jackie Robinson Parkway, which bisects the cemetery.
The Yankees' Mariano Rivera is the last player in the major leagues to wear jersey number 42 on a regular basis.
Robinson also has an asteroid named after him, 4319 Jackierobinson.
I added refs, and changed the wording a little bit when the ref info was different than what the article had.[120] I see a typo on that diff, which I'll also fix. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe Jackie Robinson Foundation will open The Jackie Robinson Museum on Canal Street in the west side of Lower Manhattan in 2010, I think it should be mentioned and be included as a part of the family etc. section.
Questions - How old was Jackie Robinson Jr. in 1971? When were Sharon and David born?Weren't there better black star ballplayers than Jackie Robinson, like Josh Gibson, Monte Irvin, Satchel Paige who were resentful that he was selected over them in 1947 to be the first to play in the majors?...Modernist (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI'm trying to find the source for this I read it somewhere (maybe Bill James) - Robinson was getting criticized from both ends. The big star veterans of the Negro Leagues were for the most part too old, and they decided on JR because he was a good ballplayer and old enough to take the heat.
Good suggestions. I've started implementing them. Do you have a ref for the museum? I did a few quick searches, and only found stuff from 2008, saying it would open in 2009. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done, - as an aside Henry Aaron wrote in his autobiography how JR's success in the majors fueled his own ambitions and served as an inspiration to his entire generation of black ballplayers...Modernist (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support An extremely well written article. Great sources, and very well put together. This is certainly featured article material.
Oppose on criterion 3 - These issues should be easy to fix.
File:Jackie robinson story.jpg - Link to source needs to be fixed and license needs to be fixed (see conflicting information between dates in license and publication date).
I've finished fixing this one up. Notice that the license used to say it was in the PD because it was published before 1923, but the date of publication was listed as 1950. Now the license says it was published between 1923 and 1977 and the copyright was not renewed (verified by the LOC). Awadewit (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Jrobinson.jpg - Who is Bob Sandberg? This image is under copyright if he is one of Look's photographers and we would need to investigate this further.
I added a link to the source identifying him as a Look photographer to the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and fixed this. Note that the image description listed the publication date at 1951, but the license claimed that the image was in the PD because it was published before 1923. I'm fixed this by substituting the correct license. Awadewit (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Jackie Robinson Memorial.JPG - I agree with the uploader of this image that there probably is no copyright in this image, but I would feel more comfortable if others weighed in on this, perhaps a Commons admin?
I consider this matter settled - thanks to everyone for weighing in and PF for his research. Awadewit (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to striking this quickly. Awadewit (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at them. I'll fix them tonight and tomorrow.
On the memorial photo, I agree that there is no copyright concern. For anyone interested, I spelled out my thoughts on it here. -Pete (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, did some research on sculpture copyrights and originality. This book talks a little bit about the amount of originality needed with regard to three dimensional sculptures. Someone tried to assert copyright on a plastic version of a PD cast iron bank. They were rejected. It's 3D to 3D, not 2D to 3D, but I would think it wold work the same with 2D to 3D. The point is that sculptures can lack originality, and in that case, I would think a 3D number would be about as unoriginal as one can get. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing some research on Bob Sandberg. It looks like he was a member of the Look magazine staff, so his photos should be public domain. This book says he was on their staff. He did a ton of covers for them, to the point I don't think they'd be letting him do that many freelance. Plus, the LOC has so many of his Look photos, again, I don't think he's freelance. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Jackie Robinson No5 comic book cover.jpg: Not sure what you mean when you say the dates don't match up.
OK, some of the images aren't totally clear cut. If what I've said here, plus Pete's comment, is enough, I'll leave them in. If you're not sure about any of them, I'll just remove the ones you're unsure of. Copyright stuff is always hard. Even a lawyer wouldn't necessarily be able to tell you, they'd just say it can only be determined by a court. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Thanks for the image love. Sorry you had to do so much yourself. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Patrick {oѺ∞} 00:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am very excited to announce Virginia is ready for FAC. I, and a handful of editors, have given a great push to get it to featured quality. This is the third time I am nominating it, but the third time's the charm. We have taken measures since the last nomination to correct any errors in the prose, including a fourth peer review, and have tripled our textual sources. We also recently moved to Harvard style citations, so if you catch any lingering errors from that migration, let us know, though I am confident in our system. While the page is long in wikitext, the prose is the same length of similar articles on Oklahoma and Minnesota, the two other FAs on states which have been a guide for us. All comments are welcomed!-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 00:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I've only had time for a quick spot check so far:-
Page ranges in refs shold be marked "pp." not "p."
Those page ranges should be separated by ndashes (some are, some have hyphens)
Some no-break spaces are missing
The Religious Affilation table is confusing. The "Christian" percentage is 76, but the denominational breakdown only totals 48%. The non-Christian breakdown only totals 18.5%
Presentational point on image placement: The left-right zigzag seems to have been abandoned midway through the article – all the later images are right-aligned.
Values such as "over $2 billion" should be made date-specific
These are nit-picks on what looks like a well-prepared and presented article. Wiki-time for me during the next week will be very restricted so I may not be able to extend this review. I hope the above pointers were helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I found three that only had one "p", were there more? Are the hyphens in the Harvard style or the other citations? I know you're busy, so I'll see what I can do. Also, I could add a line with "other christian" with the remaining 28% percent, but it might be confused for a cohesive group and I felt it was self-explanatory. The remainder below 100% are "unaffiliated", which is different than "non-religious". I also got a date for that value, 2006. And, thanks to our editors, the zig-zag continues somewhat now, though its function is generally only used for sections with multiple images, and ones with just one image have it on the right, per the MOS.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 16:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the three remaining hyphens in page ranges. As to the table, I believe that if a table shows percentages the total must add up to 100%. I assure you that "Other Christian" is much less confusing than leaving readers wondering who the other 28% are. Also, show the unaffiliated figure for the same reason. Has anyone checked out the no-break spaces? If the article is still here in a week's time I'll try and look at the prose (which looks pretty good on a rapid glace-over). Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch for getting those dashes! I added the row for "Other Christian" and will for the Unknowns, but I don't agree that we need it. "Unaffiliated" was the wrong word, that does actually that same as "Non-religions." We use data from two different religious surveys done in 2008, and they use the different words. The first survey gives us five divisions in Christianity, but none in "other religions", and the second unfortunately lumps Christians into Evangelical, Non-Evangelical, and Black, but gave the breakdown of the four other major world religions. Both surveys have margin of error, i.e. people they spoke to but refused to answer. So I can add a row that lists 5% as either "Unknown" or "Refused" if you want, but I don't think we need it. Accurate numbers probably would add up to more than 100%, since many people hold more than one religion.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 23:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done. No links to disambiguation pages. A few images (the infobox ones, primarily) lack alt text. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Virginia sign.JPG is probably a copyvio unless the sign is known to have been there since 1977 or earlier
Not a matter for opposing, but it would be awesome if someone could come up with a version of File:Virginia population map.png as a vector image.
That's all I can see for now. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at the images for us! The infobox template sets the alt text for those images, and I don't currently have control over them, but they do have alt text. I've asked repeatedly about these images you see concerns about, and not got a straight answer. Ultimately, I believe the contextual significance for the Civil Rights Memorial is appropriate, just as WWII memorial would be significant to the article on WWII, and not only the article on the memorial. I was also told over at WP:IMAGEHELP that the welcome sign probably wasn't "creative enough" to be copyrighted. As for the population map, I doubt anyone would take the time to do it, especially since it's already ten years out of date. Perhaps next year after the new census we'll get an SVG. Best-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 16:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't think the deer is a derivative file. I touched up the colors, and it was later migrated to the Commons, but I don't see where its a derivative. Am I missing it?-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 16:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Unrelated to sources, but WAY too much linking going on... at least a third of the words in the article are blue! Need to seriously cut down on the links to thinkgs like "Haze" "black bear" "beaver" "tobacco" "median household incomes", etc.
Still a lot of extra linking going on, but I'll leave that for someone else to worry about. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One unreferenced paragraph in "Civil War"
Other unreferenced bits that need referencing "World War II and the Cold War led to massive expansion of national government programs housed in offices in northern Virginia near Washington,..." ... need to double check that no other bits are lacking citations.
Personal pet peeve, but there is no need to link to an external website for the publisher name in your references when you already link to the site in the link title. It just adds to the sea of blue. An example is Current ref 36 (Virginias' Forest Resources) which has THREE external links in it. One for the link title (which should remain) one of rthe title of the work on the website and one for the home page of the website with the publisher name. Overlinking here, just need the original link.
Current ref 118 (The Best States for ...) lacks a publisher
Current ref 170 (Virginia Council for private Education...) lacks a publisher
Double check that all your newspaper titles are in italics. I noted Current ref 205 (Hart..) but there are probably others.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking over the references. Good eye catching the non-italicized one, it was listed as the publisher. I've added sources for the Civil War and the federal government, and replaced the one questionable source with a newspaper. I'll see what I can do about the wikilinking and external source linking.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 19:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for the excessive wikilinking, Patrick removed the ones you specifically mentioned, and I made a run through the article and trimmed a couple dozen more.--Kubigula(talk) 17:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A first-class article in every way. Comment.Alt text is done. Alt text is present and is in pretty good shape (thanks), but I spotted some problems:
In the lead infobox, please supply |FlagAlt=, |SealAlt=, and |MapAlt= parameters which I just now added to {{Infobox U.S. state}}. For example, the |MapAlt= parameter should tell a blind reader the gist of the locator map, which is that Virginia lies on the Atlantic coast, just north of the midline of the country, and mostly runs east-west.
Some phrases can't be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and need to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. These include "in Williamsburg during winter", "nobleman" (this word happens to be incorrect anyway), "of Richmond", "Capitol" (twice), "James River".
"Autumn" shouldn't be capitalized.
Several alt text entries start with "The" but "A" would be better, e.g., "The swooping airport terminal..."
Quick question with your FlagAlt and SealAlt: can I describe the seal in detail, then in the next field, refer to that description, or do I have to repeat the seal's description in the flag?-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, those are all added and the touch ups are done. Can you confirm that it meets standards now? With Pocahontas, I realize its romanticized, and the caption admits that up front, but the other images of her have their own historic issues as well. In general, we use Pocahontas to introduce the breath of Virginia's history and her status as a native, not specifically the colony or anything about the person. If I replaced it, I'd want one that attempted to show how natives looked, rather than how a native in European clothing looked.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Later alt texts can (and in this case should) refer to earlier ones to avoid repetition.
Other changes to alt text look good; thanks.
The suggested image File:Pocahontas-saves-Smith-NE-Chromo-1870.jpeg does show native dress, not European dress. Plus, it depicts the context of her most famous action, which was in Virginia. Isn't it a better image, if the goal is to introduce the breadth of Virginia's history?
Support - meets FA requirements. Dincher (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with suggestions:
The writing in the second paragraph of the climate section, first two sentences, is stilted and a little ambiguous. It could use a little work.
You may wish to consider whether the demographics table should go in the separate article on the state's demographics. It is difficult, and may have a level of detail unnecessary here, given the existence of Demographics of Virginia.Kablammo (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. I spent today fixing up new, simpler race and ancestry tables, and I'll look into the part of the climate section there.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 21:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved, on both counts. The new table looks great-- a model of clarity and presentation. Kablammo (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I like to spot-check the sports section in articles such as this one. Not only is it my area of interest, but I find a check of a section buried deep in the body as a good test. I'm pleased to report that the writing in this one section looks fairly clean to me, with this exception: "Virginia is home to two NASCAR tracks currently on the Sprint Cup schedule". Technically, NASCAR schedules races on tracks, not tracks themselves.Giants2008 (17–14) 23:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good work, you should be especially proud to have done most of the work yourself. Over 27% of the edits to the article, compared to 2.7% for the next person. [124]
- Pretty close. Overall the content is there, the presentation just needs some cleanup.
Overall work needs to be done to have the first one/two sentences in each section (and sometimes paragraph) support the rest. For example if you take the Minnesota article and read the first two sentences of each section or major paragraph you wind up with a good overview of the article.
Isn't tobacco important enough to get more mentions in the article and possible go in the header? History_of_tobacco#In_the_United_States pretty much only talks about Virginia.
We do note its drawing power in the history section and the plantation economy in general in the lead, but I think the introduction should stay with the current way of things, noting computer chips. History of tobacco has a short section about John Rolfe, but I think the topic is better covered by History of commercial tobacco in the United States, which doesn't even mention Virginia.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The geography and climate of the state are shaped by the Blue Ridge Mountains and the Chesapeake Bay, which are home to much of the state's flora and fauna." - isn't backed up in the main article body, but is true from what I found - [125]
I added a sentence in Flora and fauna that says the mountains and the coast have most of the wilderness, and there's always been a sentence noting the Chesapeake is home to a variety of fish.
Can you find a better pic for geography? It's tiny as heck and has no details.
"The state population is nearly eight million.[5]" - might be worth expanding this sentence?
We used to note that it was majority white and Baptists, but that was rejected, and then we noted its black minority, but that's no good either. Right now it just hangs off of the previous sentence about the cities.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"More than four thousand caves exist in Virginia, with ten open for tourism." Any good wikilink for this, or reason why so many exist?
Added carbonate rock as the reason for the caves.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The climate of Virginia varies according to location." - States the obvious. Maybe have it mention that it crosses two climate classifications?
Combined with another sentence to better introduce the section.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a dumb northerner :) - Does the whole state receive snow in the winter? What about reaching freezing temperatures regularly?
The whole state gets snow. More in the north than the south, but that seems like, again, stating the obvious.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious to you, but not to others. "humid subtropical climate" areas vary greatly. The tip of Florida is in the same zone and will see snow once a decade or less. Any 3rd opinions on this?
"The deciduous and evergreen trees emit hydrocarbons which give the mountains their distinct blue haze.[38]" - This sentence feels like it was taken out of some other context. May want to work in the sentence from Blue Ridge Mountains about how this is why they get their name. Why does it start with "The"?
Remove the word "the" and moved this sentence into a caption with a new image, where we note the color.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to touch up the parks paragraph with an overview sentence.
Combining the first sentence with a later one as Ruhrfisch suggested may have done just this.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The opening to the history section needs improvement. Why is it starting with mentions of an event/organization?
I've added some more to this introduction, but we just want to note the three major cultures of Virginia, and its 400 years of history.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't like how it opens with the "Jamestown 2007" thing, but I can live with it.
Native_American_tribes_in_Virginia "an area estimated to have been occupied by indigenous peoples for more than 12,000 years." - Virgina "The first people arrived in Virginia about 5,000 years ago, and farming began there by 900". The articles disagree and the statement seems unsupported by a reference.
I think there's a difference between the arrival of nomads, and the arrival of groups, such as the Algonquin, which I think is the lower number. I'll see if we can change the sentence, but historians really aren't sure about this anyways, and some push arrival back to 17,000 BC or further. "5,000 years ago" is covered by the reference two sentences later, which is a book used throughout the history section. I'd generally prefer to stick with the one source, than just find one for this date.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Virginia is sometimes called "Mother of States" because of its role in being carved into several mid-western states.[70]" - would be made clearer with one of the maps from Colony_of_Virginia
It is, but there's no room. That's why we have those subarticles.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Modern Times" almost exclusively focuses on race related items. There has to be other things that are important enough to mention.
Virginia's modern history is more tied to that of the United States. Yes, there was a depression and two world wars, but these aren't unique to Virginia. Uniquely Virginian events, like major conflicts, are race related in this period, with the exception of 9/11, which is noted.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Metropolitan Statistical Areas" section is a little messy. Flips between metro areas and cities, some have population counts some don't.
Might be worth noting that the state is fairly populous, but the population is not concentrated in one area.
This is now noted in the caption for the population map.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Due to their ties to the U.S. Navy, Hampton Roads has a sizable Filipino population, numbering about 45,000 in the area" - why are Filipinos tied to the US navy? Is that common knowledge?
Now explained.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any change?
Well it was changed from "because of their US Navy connection, Filipinos live in Hampton Roads" to "Filipinos live in Hampton Roads, many of whom have connections to the US Navy", which is backed up by a news story on them.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In November 2006, fifteen conservative Episcopal churches voted to split from the Diocese of Virginia over the ordination of openly gay bishops and clergy;" - on which side of the split did they fall?
Changed the ordination to a possessive, "its", to clarify who was naming the gay bishops.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Virginia's economy is balanced, with many diverse sources of income, and is made up of 4.1 million civilian workers." - what is balanced intended to convey here? Also why exclude federal workers?
Federal workers are civilians. This doesn't include the standing military jobs, though we do note the number of veterans. I've changed this around with the following sentence to be more of an introduction.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More discussion of coal and tobacco in economy since they historically carried the state?
Coal is noted in the Geology section and in the economy for its impact. Again, the historic economy isn't as relevant as the current one, but I've added a sentence about tobacco to the paragraph on agriculture.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Fine and performing arts" - might be worth mentioning the proximity to washington DC and all that it offers?
"There are however racial and social health disparities, with African Americans experiencing 63% more premature deaths than whites, while 14.1% of Virginians lack any health insurance.[186] " - bad sentence. Rearrange and split up. How does the 14.1% compare?
The lack of health insurance is a social disparity, and the sentence is set up to give examples of both racial and social problems.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked Law and government a little - this ok? [126]
Yes, it looks good.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where the Opossum photo was taken, and I think the current image of Richmond destruction gives more context.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pocahontas is pictured but not mentioned in the text. Perhaps provide a picture that supports the text instead?
Pocahontas is now mentioned in the history section's introduction. I do wish there were better images of Pocahontas.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a picture of the blue ridge mountains would be nice.
Added one to the Geography section!-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We used to use that one. New buildings have gone up since it was taken, and our new one shows even more tourists. Still, its a toss up.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any scenic pictures of Virginia.
I'd like to think that the deer, that Wolf Trap, and maybe Christ Church or Richmond are somewhat scenic. Nevertheless, there's now an image of the mountains.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that's all! - Ravedave (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once these points have been replied to I will re-review the article. -Ravedave (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great review, and has some terrific suggestions. The big thing I will look to get are more broad or introductory sentences for sections. The images are tough, since there's limited space for them. For example, we used to have an image of the Blue Ridge, but the climate chart pushed it out. I don't see us getting the map from the Colony page or other scenic photos in without removing what's already there. Also, while that is a Virginia Opossum, I don't know if the photo is taken in Virginia. I also like our image of Civil War Richmond because of the Capitol in the background, which makes it a little more specific, but am not married to it. I suppose we might add more to the modern history section, but I worry about length and contemporary bias, which is why the Virginia Tech massacre was ultimately removed. So we will continue to look to articles like Minnesota for some guidance, feel free to make whatever edits you think necessary. Thanks again!-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 18:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to see you oppose. We've added items like reasoning for caves, noted the population dispersal, and clarified the gay bishops and Filipino immigrants. I still hope to address other items as we can, and even get a scenic photo in there for you.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 22:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to say we've combined two (or more) of your suggestions there in adding a scenic image of the Blue Ridge with a caption that explains the color.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 03:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the current status on the image issues raised above? Karanacs (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Stifle will be away until September 28, so we could get a further response if you wanted to wait.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 17:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I find many flaws in the prose at the top, which strongly suggests that the whole text needs surgery.
Thanks for the suggestions, and I'm sorry you feel that way about the article. The introduction tries to compactly go over each of the sections and highlight that which is unique about the subject, per the MOS. Understand that this article has now been through GAN, five peer reviews, and two previous FACs.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Logic problem: "Virginia is known as the "Old Dominion" and sometimes as "Mother of Presidents", because it is the birthplace of eight U.S. presidents." The comma makes the meaning that "Old Dominion" is also attributable to the eight presidents. Can you move the comma earlier?
"of the state" and "the state's", three seconds apart. Try to avoid "state" twice.
Even though its an article about a state, we do try to vary the word "state" as we can, and are fortunate we can use "Commonwealth" as an alternative. I changed this one to "its".-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
is is is. You could ellide (remove) the third one.
A fourth "is". Perhaps "There are nearly eight million Virginians"?
A problem with saying "there are X number Virginians" might be that one could say there are "Virginians", like myself, living in other jurisdictions. And passive sentences are usually a problem in the lead.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"both major national parties are competitive in modern Virginia"—well ... in which states are they not both "competitive"? And this refers to both federal and state representation, one presumes. Do you mean that it's a swing state?
Right, its a swing state. States like Utah and Hawaii aren't particularly competitive, but I'll see if there's a better way to say that.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The state government, home to the oldest legislature in the Americas, has been repeatedly ranked most effective among U.S. states." I'm sure I could easily find people who would react very badly to that claim. What criteria and tests are used to arrive at it? Impossible to avoid POV. The next issue is that the subsequent statement has an unclear relationship to this assertion: "It is unique in how it treats cities and counties equally, maintains most of the state's roads, and prohibits its Governors from serving consecutive terms." Are these reasons it is claimed to be the "most effective" state legislature? If so, a colon is required. Maintaining "most of the state's roads", wow, I can't believe it, that is amazing. (Sorry to appear sarcastic: there's a bit of puffery here that needs to be wound back. As well, you'd need to explain why double-term governors are such a good thing—some people would bring up the experience argument, so why go there at all?)
It is actually very odd in the U.S. that the state government controls the local roads inside counties and cities. "Manages" is probably a better word though. These aren't really reasons for the Pew Research Center's grades, only that its the same topic. I think any number one ranked school, program, or group might mention that in their summary. We've been told to highlight what makes the subject unique in its field, which is the reason for mentioning the governors, roads, and counties.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still comes over as puffery, the ultimate claim. It is appropriate to let us as the readers come to that conclusion after reading the whole article; or at least to pitch the claim as not of WP's making, but the Pew Center's (lower down in the body of the article). Tony(talk) 14:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we can work with that. Do you think the ranking just needs to be attributed, or should it not be in the introduction altogether?-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 18:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Virginia's economy has many sectors: agriculture in places like the Shenandoah Valley; federal agencies in Northern Virginia, including the Department of Defense and CIA; and military facilities in Hampton Roads, home to the region's main seaport." So the "many" are agriculture and government, yes? The list items, separated by semicolons, are not entirely logical: "military facilities" are not "federal agencies"? And they are lumped together with a seaport? Then there's a period, which suggests that the list of economic sectors has come to an end. But has it? "The growth of the media and technology sectors have made computer chips the state's leading export, with the industry based on the strength of Virginia's public schools and universities." Computer chips are a low-grade product made in cheap-labour countries in east Asia. Surely you don't need a high-class education sector for that. What a jumble.
A military facility is a federal installation (a place), the DOD is more like a federal agency (a company). Jobs in computer chip design and production typically requires a BS/BE/PHD here and in East Asian countries, you may be thinking of computer software or computer assembly.--Old Guard (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very subtle distinctions: I think it should be smooth and easy for the readers here; in the body of the article there will be space to bring this out.Tony(talk) 14:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are sports tacked onto the end of the last para? Tony(talk) 08:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well colleges are mentioned in the previous sentence, to go with the college sports. If we ignore sports I worry that the introduction wouldn't properly summarize the article, but I suppose we can do without the sentence.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier this year we used that advice to locate User:Dincher, who gave us an invaluable going over in May. The user is now one of our supporters. But yes, we can, it is always good to have more copyeditors.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 18:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments from Ruhrfisch. I peer reviewed this a while ago and was asked to look at it again in FAC. While it has improved considerably, I still found many places where the prose could be improved or was unclear. I will attempt to list as many of these as I can here:
In the lead I think I would mention that Richmond was the capital of the Confederacy
In the Geography section this almost has to be an error: The southern border is defined as the 36° 30′ parallel north, though surveyor error led to deviations of as much as three degrees.[11] A degree of latitude is about 69 statute miles (111 km), so this is saying there are errors in the southern border of over 200 miles (320 km)?? My guess is that it is off by up to 3 minutes (very roughly 3 miles or 5 km).
The source we have says "3°", but I agree, it must be the smaller number, since its about 8 miles off. However, is there a better word than "minutes of arc"? Can we say "by three percent" or something, if not "degrees"?-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 22:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see it now links to arcminutes, which seems fine Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awkward secntence in Geology (I know what it menas, but there has to be a better way to say it): These form three peninsulas into the Chesapeake.[15] (referring to four rivers)
Agreement between subect and verb - are the five regions each a singular or a plural (it seems to me they should all be the same). So "The Tidewater is..." (singular), but "The Piedmont are a series of sedimentary and igneous rock-based foothills..." (plural verb - I could see "The Piedmont is formed by a series of..."). Then we have "The Blue Ridge are a physiographic province ..." (plural verb but singular nouns "Ridge" and "Province") I can see either "The Blue Ridge is a physigraphic province..." or "The Blue Ridge Mountains are a physigraphic province..." (it seems odd to my ear to say Blue Ridge without Mountains)
That's tough. Piedmont is French, meaning "foothills", but this is being EN, perhaps we ignore that. Google results are identical for "Piedmont are" vs. "Piedmont is", but the article Piedmont (United States) uses "is", so I've changed it to be singular. With the Blue Ridge, the phrase is always short for "Blue Ridge Mountains", though I added the word "Mountains" in there to be specific.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example Blue Ridge Mountains is linked four times in the article - twice in three paragraphs (in the Geology and Climate sections). My rule of thumb is to link something once in the lead, once in the infobox, and then the first time it is mentioned in the body of the article. Or one more example, Mesozic is linked twice in just the Geology section
Unlinked those examples.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Climate section has two awkward sentences Most of the state east of the Blue Ridge Mountains, as well as the southern part of the Shenandoah Valley, to the Atlantic coast has a humid subtropical climate ... perhaps something like "Most of the state has a humid subtropical climate, from the Blue Ridge Mountains and southern Shenandoah Valley east to the Atlantic coast..." would read better. I would also move the years in Although Hurricane Camille in 1969 devastated Nelson County, and Fran and Isabel in 1996 and 2003 caused flash flooding in the mountains, hurricanes rarely threaten communities far inland.[26][29] to something like "Although Hurricane Camille devastated Nelson County in 1969, and Fran and Isabel caused flash flooding in the mountains in 1996 and 2003, ..."
Good idea, done.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 23:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS says to spell out percent in sentences like Forests cover 65% of the state.[37] - this is a very short sentence and the one that follows is on the types of trees, could they be combined?
I like that, done.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 02:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prose could be tightened in spots - two examples from Flora and fauna Other commonly found trees and plants include chestnut, maple,... and Deciduous and evergreen trees emit hydrocarbons which give the mountains their distinct blue haze.[39] (are there trees which are neither deciduous nor evergreen?) I also note the previous paragraph (in Climate) said Haze in the mountains is caused in part by coal power plants.[36] could these sentences be combined (probably in climate)?
Perhaps these could be combined. For now I changed the second "haze" to "color", and its now in an image caption above.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 02:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another place where prose could be tightened by combining some Virginia has many National Park Service units, including one national park, the Shenandoah National Park. [2 sentences omitted]... Thirty parks and trails, such as Great Falls Park and the Appalachian Trail, are managed in the National Park System.[45] could be something like this (and there is probably a way to avoid repeating national park twice too): "Virginia has thirty National Park Service (NPS) units, including one national park, the Shenandoah National Park. ... Other NPS parks and trails include Great Falls Park and the Appalachian Trail.[45]"
Another good idea. Done.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 03:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In History, I would add either CE or AD to 900 in The first people arrived in Virginia about 5,000 years ago, and farming began there by 900.
Added CE.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless they moved the building, I would change the spelling to "capital" in After the capture of Richmond, the capitol was briefly moved to Danville.[76] might also help to add the year (1865)
"Captial" fixed and year added.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since Richmond was burned by its own citizens in the Civil War, and the photo File:Richmond Civil War ruins.jpg shows this, I would refer to this in the caption (which is now just the bland Richmond was the capital of the Confederate States of America.
Added to the caption.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a ref Virginia was formally restored to the United States in 1870, due to the work of the Committee of Nine.
Found one for now.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that is it for now. I agree that the language needs to be improved to meet the FAC criteria, though this generally looks good. Ruhrfisch><>°° 16:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking that over! Mistakes like capitol/capital are quite embarrassing.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 21:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Made some corrections, and will look at phrasing issues soon.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I struck some - will look at the rest of the article for more comments tomorrow. Looking good, Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Struck the rest above, here are my last comments from the rest of the article (after History). I also made some copyedits - please revert if I have made things worse or introduced any errors.
Needs a ref (or two): This method of treating cities and counties equally is unique to Virginia, with only three other independent cities in the United States outside Virginia. Incorporated towns exist and operate under their own town governments, but are also part of a county. There are also hundreds of other unincorporated communities within the counties. Virginia does not have any further political subdivisions, such as villages or townships.
I got one for the uniqueness. Should we get one for the lack of further divisions?-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am OK with this as is, thanks Ruhrfisch><>°° 19:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could this be trimmed?English is the only language spoken by 6,245,517 (86.7%) Virginians, though it is spoken "very well" by an additional 570,638 (7.9%) for a total of 94.6% of the Commonwealth which speaks English.
It could, and is now.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Missing word or phrase? People of English heritage settled throughout the state during the colonial period, and others of British and Irish heritage have migrated [there? to the state?] since for work.[108]
Changed to "have since immigrated to the state...", though maybe the Irish are somewhat migratory...-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About seems odd here - the figure seems to be known exactly ...with about 48,745 Vietnamese statewide as of 2007.[109]
That's the exact number from the census. I changed it to "about 48,000", since the number is surely volatile, and I think WP:NUMBERS#Large numbers recommends approximating.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a ref or two Tom Wolfe has occasionally dealt with his southern heritage in bestsellers like I Am Charlotte Simmons. Virginia also names a state Poet Laureate, currently Claudia Emerson of Fredericksburg. and "currently" should be "as of 2009"
Got two. Will work on phrasing, but I'm having trouble changing the sentence to remove "currently". Maybe we can say she will serve until 2010?-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be something like Virginia also names a state Poet Laureate; Claudia Emerson of Fredericksburg will serve from 2008 to 2010. ? Ruhrfisch><>°° 19:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear / awkward last phrase in As of 2007, the Virginia state government owns and operates 84.6% of roads in the state, instead of the local city or county authority. I know what it means, but it needs to be clearer. Perhaps "...84.6% of roads in the state, which is unusual as the local city or county authorities own most of the roads in other states."?
Added both a reference and a reason for the unusual situation.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the however needed (or in the right place?) in Democratic support persists however in union-influenced parts of Southwest Virginia...?
Changed to "also persists", not sure about this though. The idea is most areas outside the big cites became Republican during the 70s and 80s, but because these places had some other influence (unions, colleges...) they didn't. It's actually pretty tricky to say.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am done - am leaning towards support and made some copyedits just now, Ruhrfisch><>°° 14:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the copyedits, they look good!-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help - I have changed my comments to support above as I now feel it meets the FAC criteria. Good job! Ruhrfisch><>°° 19:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be cited?
The reasons for this include the lack of any dominant city or market within the state and the proximity of teams in Washington, D.C.
I am nominating this for featured article because it is a comprehensive and well-written article on a historic Lower East Side synagogue. It was last nominated in March 2009, and since then it has been thoroughly copy-edited and requested detail has been added. Jayjg (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've removed the size parameter for the images where it is unnecessary (i.e. doesn't need to be a fixed size in order to appreciate the image). This, I believe (but I can never remember policy or find it again!), is as per policy on Images. If there is a valid reason, though I can't think of one, please revert it. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Detailed and well researched article on an important cultural landmark. Briangotts(Talk)(Contrib) 01:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems a fine article, and good for FA status. Some minor suggestions:
I believe the floor/story numbering needs looking at, including the alt texts. For example, the second image's alt text says "A three story square building directly abuts a sidewalk. The facade is reddish brick, with three tall arched windows on the second floor. The main entrance juts forward from the facade, and is topped by an arch." In the text (section "Subsequent renovations and appearance in the 1990s"), we say that a fourth floor was added to the front of the building, meaning that the building was at least four-story and possible five-story, depending on whether the ground floor was considered the first floor in this instance or not. Compared to the three-story building to the left, it seems five-story. In the article body, we also say that the arched windows are on the third floor (clearly implying that in this instance at least, the ground floor was taken to be the first floor), rather than following the alt text in saying they're on the second. The alt text for the third image (demolition) again numbers the floors; it says the first (ground) floor is surrounded by plywood hoarding, and the second is visible to the street. I think the floor that is visible was the third (i.e. the one that had the arched windows on the façade), rather than the second. --JN466 17:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)I think this is fixed now, pls review. --JN466 23:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is nominally on the congregation, but most of its content is on the building. While this seems quite appropriate, it would be nice if the article ended with information on the congregation, i.e. whether it continued/continues to exist and meet after the collapse of the building in 2006. --JN466 17:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)couldn't find any more sources on recent developments either. --JN466 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of interest (it might make a useful external link), there is a photograph of the original third-floor arched stained-glass windows, showing the top roundel with its three spandrels (two large, one small, as mentioned in the text) here: http://www.forgottensynagogues.com/image.asp?img=Roumanian_Congregation.jpgJN466 18:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)per Jayjg; same congregation name and window layout, but different city and synagogue altogether. --JN466 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]
In "Early activities", 1st para, we say, "At the latter service, which was boycotted by Orthodox rabbis, Herzl was not eulogized, nor was his name mentioned." This sounds potentially a little strange, partly due to the mention of the boycott, as though Herzl was snubbed at his own memorial service by the large crowd that had turned up to commemorate him. I suspect the congregation was respecting Herzl's modesty; he had expressly asked that there should be no speeches at his funeral service. JN466 14:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)couldn't find any more sources on this specific service either. --JN466 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thorough review, Jayen466. Responding to your points in order:
You were correct, and good changes!
The most recent information I can find is from 2006, when the congregation moved to Spiegel's mother's apartment, and vowed to re-build. There certainly has not been anything built since then, nor any stories on the congregation.
I believe that's a different synagogue, the First Roumanian Congregation at 3622 W. Douglas Blvd. in Chicago. The website (and book) in question is about the forgotten synagogues of Chicago. You can see a picture of the whole wall here and here. The synagogue is also mentioned on p. 9 of this: [128] It has been the Stone Temple Missionary Baptist Church since 1954.
You may be correct; the source doesn't indicate the reason, but obviously found it odd. Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Proofread completed: this is good stuff, well researched, well written. Extra brownie points for all the work put in formatting the clickable footnotes and references. JN466 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Recent improvements have eliminated the considerations that I had last April. Well done...Modernist (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a good read and does a fine job telling us the history of the building itself, prominent people that attended as well as the sad demise of the synagogue. I know myself that though monies would have been more available to make repairs needed to keep the synagogue structurally sound if it had been placed on the NRHP, the constraints of such a placement oftentimes makes later alterations, especially those that alter the exterior appearance, subject to outside review that is oftentimes meddlesome. Extensive refs which all check out as best as I could see...nice job!--MONGO 03:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - All images look good. NW(Talk) 23:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Oppose'.
This article appears to have difficulty determining its core topic. Is it about the building? Is it about the people? Here is how I see the current article structure:
Background information on Romanian Jews in NYC and the founding of the Congregation
History of the building - this information is unnecessary in an article on the congregation (or could at least be condensed into a few sentences)
Building purchase and initial renovations - again, this is overly detailed for an article on the congregation but would be appropriate in an article on the building itself
More renevations - overly detailed for congregation article, appropriate for article on building
Early activities - very detailed account of specific events between 1903 and 1911. Appropriate for either subject
Cantor's Carnegie Hall switches focus entirely in the second paragraph to focus more on individuals than either the congregation or the building. I question why there are so many biographical details on some of the individuals, and I think what remains here should be rewritten to be a focus on either the building or the congregation
Decline discusses both the congregation and the building
Collapse again has focus on both the congregation (which no longer used the building) and the building
What happened during the period between 1911 and 1980? We have a very detailed account of specific events that happened at the turn of the century, and not much on events that happen after that.
I recommend another copyedit. I copyedited the first few sections but stopped. There are issues with passive voice and overly circular sentences that can be difficult to digest.
Karanacs, I think that the article should be about both the congregation and the structure...I'm thinking that integrating both subjects together gives the article a better overall feel than seperating them. Perhaps more is needed, as you mention, regarding the period between the early 20th century and 1980, if such material is available. It is very difficult to write articles about subjects that aren't well documented in either the news or in books...what we have here may be as comprehensive as it can be, so are the main arguments in opposition about the structure and prose or about whether the article lacks focus and depth?--MONGO 00:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Karanacs, thanks for your thorough review and copy-edits.
Regarding the article, it is about both, of course, a congregation that occupied a notable building. Synagogues are a combination of structure and people, and the word itself, "synagogue", is used to refer to both. In this case the two were effectively inseparable for most of their existences; thus, the article discusses both aspects. Interestingly, on other FAs about synagogues I've gotten feedback that there wasn't enough detail on the structure.
You are correct that there is more about the turn of the century and the past few decades than the period in between. Unfortunately, MONGO is right; there don't appear to be any sources that really discuss this period in the synagogue's history in any detail. To be honest, there's very little about any of its history, and—aside from the NRHP nomination form—certainly nothing with more than a paragraph or so; that's why I needed to find almost 90 sources to build the article. I am fairly confident that this is the most comprehensive resource that exists anywhere on the synagogue.
Regarding discussions of individuals, when they are famous (e.g. Edward G. Robinson), the details given are the ones relevant to their relationship with the synagogue. Otherwise, (e.g. synagogue rabbis), a brief description of their lives is given, as Wikipedia does not have individual articles on them, and is not likely to. All of this is part of the social history of the synagogues; who worshiped there, who were the rabbis, what were their backgrounds and activities, etc.
Finally, regarding the copy-editing, it has already been copy-edited several times, by (now 3) different editors. Of course, different people have different tastes in writing; I've had the unfortunate experience in the past of being whipsawed between different reviewers each insisting on their own personal preferences. I'll take another pass through it, and I do appreciate the work you've done on it, which I think improved it. It would be great if you could do more.
The prose is not my primary concern, and I would not have opposed on that basis alone.
I understand that there may be a dearth of sources for some aspects, but including such detail about one time period and not others leads the article to seem unbalanced. The unbalance extends to the biographical information - we are given a lot of detail about a few people who aren't quite notable enough to have their own article and it seems out of place here. Perhaps that excessive information could be moved to footnotes?
I am not very familiar with Jewish terminology. In my (Protestant) experience, "congregation" is used to refer to the people, while "church" could mean either the people or the building or both. I assumed, as you verified, that "synagogue" covers both aspects, but "congregation", to me, did not mean the same thing. If congregation does cover both meanings, that may need to be made much clearer in the lead for people of other (or no) faiths who attribute a different meaning to the term.
Perhaps a minor reorganization and slight refocus of the article could lead to better flow and make more sense. In that vein, I'd start with the history of the building (what is now the Early tenants section). Incorporate the "origins" into the "purchase and renovation ..." section, as there is very little information on the previous location or activities of the congregation before they moved. Early activities would then go before "Subsequent renovations...". With a bit of careful prose and the restructuring, I think the article would make more sense and not seem to jump back and forth as much.
Which people do you feel have material that could be moved to a footnotes? I'm happy to take a look.
You are correct that "synagogue" is the term more analogous to "church". Perhaps it would help if the name were changed to "First Roumanian-American Congregation Synagogue"; that's what it's called in the NRHP nomination forms. BTW, even though the NRHP is really about buildings, the nomination forms also devote space to the congregation, the cultural milieu and background, etc.
Those are good suggestions, and I'll attempt something in the next few days.
By the way, please don't interpret my delay in responding as a lack of interest. I've been extremely tied up with other matters, and haven't been able to edit in a week. I'll be quite busy for the next week as well, but will have more time after that. Jayjg (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., I've re-organized it along the lines of your suggestions, and made some other changes which I hope will aid in readability and flow. Please let me know what you think. Jayjg (talk) 06:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like it much better now and am striking my oppose. On reading it, though, I realized that you were right about placing the overview of the people first. I moved that section up and combined it with the origins of the building section into one overall "origins" section. I think having these two as subsections will make it even clearer that the building and the people combined to create this entity. (and if you don't like this change, feel free to revert it). As for biographical info, this time I was only surprised a bit by the detail on Chaim Porille and Mordecai Mayer; if the details that are given are important to the congregation itself (like their death dates), I can see their usefulness, but I don't see a link between most of the biographical information and the congregation. (I may be missing something.) Karanacs (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I like what you've done. Regarding Porille and Mayer, my reasoning is as follows: they don't have Wikipedia articles, and they served the congregation for decades each (essentially until their deaths or retirements). Each section gives a (very) brief summary of their lives, shorter even than their obituaries, and generally includes activities they carried out while rabbi of the synagogue. It's interesting to note that First Roumanian-American was hiring foreign-born rabbis throughout the 20th century. It's also interesting to note that, although this was a Romanian-Jewish congregation, from 1932 onwards the congregation hired Polish Jews as rabbis. Both of these facts are likely related to the congregation's Orthodoxy and traditionalism (the greatest supply of traditional Orthodox rabbis at that time would have been from Poland). Anyway, I don't think 3 or so sentences on each is too much detail to describe a career, but I'm open to other views. Jayjg (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see it as analogous to an article about a country, which could well have separate sections for physical geography and for government and culture; or analogous to a Wikipedia article about a person famous for a single incident, which could have separate sections for the person's early life, and for events leading up to the incident. A synagogue is as much a single concept (including both building and people) as is a country. (involved editor) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the fact that this article blends both architectural ("about the building") and cultural ("about the people") information makes it an improvement upon articles about either architecture and culture-- when an overlap is apparent. Structurally the only aspect I worry about is that it is sort of saddening with the three consecutive sections of "Decline," "Collapse," and "Controversy." But honestly, I think it is thoroughly featured article quality. Getting people reading and changing the wording may be beneficial, more so for their own reading of this article, but at this point the article does not need any more copy editing to be featured article quality, three times is sufficient in my view. Especially when it was already very well written. Best, DVD 02:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it is a fascinating and well-written article. As to the building/people thing, I have two comments. The first is purely anecdotal, but as a Jew my experience is congregation and synagugue being used interchangable. for example, the Conservative Movement's lay branch is called United Synagogue (the youth branch is United Synagogue Youth) - obviously it is not a union of buildings but of congregations - the point is, I think, "synagogue" or "bet ha Knesset" i.e. "meeting house" is for Jews interchangable with congregation, the people who meet regularly (to congregate) become an institution when they have a building. Similarly, the synagogue I belonged to growing up was the — Hebrew Congregation, which was definitely the name of the building as much as the name of the group the building served. In Hebrew, "bet" means house but it also means family, in the dynastic sense (e.g. the house of David = David's descendents); I see a strong connection between the idea of the physical structure and the group of people. Second comment, less anecdotal: as a social scientist I observe that the distinction between a building and a person, while certainly reasonable and meaningful, is like all such distinctions culture-bound. As reasonable as it is to view them as separate, it is just as reasonable to view them as functionally integrated. One could write just of the building - such an article I suppose would be of interest to architects. One could speak just of the people ... except it would be impossible to talk of this specific group of people without making constant reference to the building. And while an architect might value an article that was exclusively about the building, most social scientists would say that the building means nothing except in relation tot he people who use it. Which reminds me of a joke I can't help ending with. There is a shipwreck, the sole survivor is a Jew who is washed up on a small island. Throughsome luck and determination he surivives for several years until finally he a passing ship sees his fire and sends a rescue party. When they reach the island they notice three shacks. He runs into one, obviously his home, where he is packing the meager belongings he has held onto. Someone from the rescue party points to one of the other shakcs and aks if there is someone else one the island. The man says "no, I am alone ... but I wanted a synagogue to pray in." The rescuer points to the other shack and asks what that is. The man replies "Oh! And that is the synagogue I wouldn't be caught dead in!!" maybe you have to be Jewish to get it. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I revised the article to clarify that the NRHP application document, used heavily throughout the article, is published by the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, not by the U.S. Dept of the Interior or the National Park Service, and I added link to the accompanying four 1997 photos of interior and exterior. I added mention, up front, that the building is NRHP-listed, in 2009, despite having been demolished in 2006. By a slow process of reporting to the National Register and their following up with error corrections and other changes (see wp:NRIS info issues, I and others in wp:NRHP will push towards getting the National Register to update about this (i.e. to delist this building). I haven't given the article a detailed review, but offhand it looks good! doncram (talk) 11:59, 27 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.
Comprehensive article on Australian cricketer, who captained Australia twice. He also went to the 1956 Olympics in hockey, and is a lay preacher, retired education department official. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't read the article yet, but you need a ref for "In the Australian edition of the 2002 Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, he wrote a chapter titled The Curse of Sledging." Aaroncrick (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lead - "He captained Australia for two Tests during the 1965–66 Ashes series while regular captain Bob Simpson due to illness and injury." Possibly change to, " ... while regular captain Bob Simpson was absent due to illness and injury."
Early Years - "Booth was recalled a month later for a match against Len Hutton's England cricket team at the Sydney Cricket Ground." English cricket team?
"New South Wales fell further to 5/26 before Booth came in with a borrowed cap and bat to join Peter Philpott." Did he borrow other gear?
I would think so, who would bring pads adn box but no bat, but the source doesn't mention anything else YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"He played in six matches and had few opportunities, managing only 157 runs at 31.40 and passing fifty on only one occasion." remove 'and'.
Test Career - "Booth had a strong first-class season, scoring 718 runs at 65.27 with two centuries to place third on the run scoring lists." Aggregetes instead of 'run scoring lists'?
"In a match against Tasmania, Booth struck a breezy 100 from 104 balls in 90 minutes of batting, including a six that flew out of the ground." Was the match at the NTCA Ground? As the road is only 70m away.
Hitting the ball out the ground at he Domian is still no amazing feet. He would have only cleared, a small stand or a grass bank. Small boundaries as well. Not as if he was at the MCG/SCG. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to cut it out. I'm not sure if Robinson had anything in mind in highlighting that one YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Another highlight was an 87 against the touring West Indies, helping New South Wales to complete an innings win." Is the first 'an' needed? Also is 'to' needed?
Comment While I was skimming through this article I got the impression that there is very little in it other than Brian Booth's cricket career. It goes into many details about various games that he played in but has few details on his life apart from that. (I was unable to find either of his parents names, whether he had any siblings, or either of his children's names.) I also believe that the readability of the article could be vastly improved by using subheaders. 222.216.176.249 (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is quite natural because he was a world-class cricketer, and while he was selected in Australia's hockey team, he never got to play. The other thing is that in the old days there was no regular first-class hockey season in Australia with interstate teams, unlike Australia, so basically nothing is written about them; there are basically no hockey history books sold in Australia, whereas with cricket there is a heap every year. As for his teaching, he would not have been notable for preaching, pedagogy or politics of itself. However I have managed to scrape out some more statistics about the 1974 election and a bit more about Booth to add. It is not necessary to add his family's names as they are private individuals. I think the RL part is quite ample, given that the "style" section is about his mixing of religion and sport. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quickie comment: From the lead: "...had an inclination to use his feet to attack spin bowling." If I didn't know cricket I might think this meant he kicked the ball all over the place, as in soccer. It might be an idea to transfer this information to the main body of the article, where a short explanation could be added. Brianboulton (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Booth started the 1963–64 season strongly. He scored centuries in his first two innings, recording 121 and 169 not out against Queensland and Western Australia respectively.[5] His rapid innings against Western Australia at the SCG took only 94 minutes during the second session of the day. One six came from a Des Hoare beamer, which Booth hooked onto the roof of the stand on the hill.
The 169* came in 165 minutes (see the duration of the innings in CA). Hoare did not play in the match.
Fixed, and removed the beamer part, maybe Robbo got his wires crossed YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Booth did not pass 40 in the last three Tests and ended with 234 runs at 29.25 as Australia lost 2–1,[16] their first series loss since the 1956 Ashes series and their first series loss against a team other than England.
Pakistan, 1956-7
Fixed and clarified. I notice almost everyone when discussing the loss to the WI as the first series loss (not counting one offs) YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some players felt that Booth would have been more popular among the playing group, while other cricket observers thought that he would not have been hard-nosed enough in pursuing his team's competitive interest.
Not clear what you are trying to say here Tintin 15:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
Current ref 56 says the publisher is "Psephos" but who is that? What makes this a reliable source?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Psephos is run by User:Adam Carr, now retired but a legend of Wikipedia in the 2006 and before era. Apparently it is the biggest archive of electoral results in the world. He was a political official of Michael Danby and his archive was usually sourced everywhere all over Wikipedia, so most people accept, although for these purposes it might not be the best even though he just copied them from teh official govt log somewhere, which I'll try to track down YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AC has a PhD in history and the site is also endorsed by any academic on its own wiki article PsephosYellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Comments –
If I remember correctly, a person's place of birth is not supposed to be in parentheses following the name. In this article, it creates repetition with the start of the second paragraph.
"Drafted in as an emergency after the start of the match". Feels like a word is missing. Do y ou mean "emergency substitute" or something like that?
Subs are not allowed in cricket once the toss has been done. The source doesn't say explicitly, but Morris and Watson would have become unavailable on the morning of the match before the toss, but after Booth had gone to work and they would have had to phone him up to come to cricket. Except that would have taken some time because the toss is normally half an hour before the start. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is emergency used commonly like this in cricket? If so, don't worry about it. That just confused me the first time I saw it.Giants2008 (17–14) 00:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Ashes: Two Ashes links in the section. Consider replacing one with a more specific link to that year's competition, if avaliable.
"In his rapid innings against Western Australia at the SCG, Booth scored 63 for his state against South Africa, but was unable to prevent defeat. ." Excess punctuation at the end.
Vice-captaincy: "and sometimes irritated made derogatory comments towards teammates." Don't like the location of "irritated" Perhaps "and sometimes made derogatory comments towards teammates when irritated."?
Temporary captain: An Old Trafford link here goes to the soccer stadium. You could just remove it, as I remember seeing a couple of links to the cricket stadium earlier.
Style: "He was known for not hitting the ball hard but for his easy and relaxed style." I'm not sure "but for" works grammatically. Maybe "but having an..."?
"Booth stood 181 cm and weighted 66 kg who refrained from...". I know "who" doesn't work grammatically in this one.
Outside cricket: He has served as the club president among other positions on the executive". Again feels like a word is missing at the end.
Commas before and after "or verbal intimidation tactics".Giants2008 (17–14) 01:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional support pending resolution of the one sourcing concern. Bear in mind that I don't know if all the cricket terms are correct, even after reading numerous FACs in the subject area. Most everything appears in order, besides the one thing mentioned multiple times already. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"Booth was born in Perthville, located 162 km (101 mi) outside the New South Wales regional town of Bathurst" Google Maps says they're 9.2km apart, needs checking.
In the lead Booth was born in Bathurst, in the first line of the body Perthville.
"He made 59 against the Marylebone Cricket Club in a match that was effectively a dress rehearsal for the Tests" only four of the MCC's XI played in that years Ashes so that seems an exaggeration.
"featuring in a partnership of 46—the highest in Australia's innings—with centurion Bill Lawry. Australia managed only 190 on the bowler-friendly pitch." Lawry was a centurion in the second innings, this description sounds like the century came in the first innings.
"as captain Richie Benaud needed quick runs; observers felt the need to attack cost Booth his maiden Test century" I know it's 'observers' opinion but it doesn't seem to tally with me. If you're leading 2-1 in an Ashes series do you need quick runs, also Australia scored 98 runs following Booth's dismissal without a declaration.
After Booth was out they scored 98 in 110 minutes. Reasonably fast I think, considering the calibre of bowling England had at the time. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An image reviewer Jappalang has come to the conclusion that PD-Australia doesn't work on US soil unless they are pre-1946, so I comment those out when it comes to FAC YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been remiss but I have a copy of Booth's autobiography Booth to Bat so if YellowMonkey (or whoever) is after added info (such as Booth's parents' names), I can supply. --Roisterer (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - File:Brian Booth graph.png - The source for the stats needs to be listed on the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! All images check out. Awadewit (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support (Note: Prose, source, and image review.) - I know next to nothing about cricket, so my ability to understand this article this somewhat limited. However, I don't think this is the place to explain the game of cricket. :) I could still grasp the gist of the article, especially the later sections, despite my shocking ignorance. I have a few questions:
I am not an expert in cricket sources, so I cannot say if these are high-quality cricket sources, but I can say that they meet our WP:RS policy, with the exception of the one I mention below.
I agree with Ealdgyth above that the Psephos site is a problem. It needs to be replaced - I don't see a reasoning provided that would make this a RS.
In response to the question about the commented out images, YM wrote "An image reviewer Jappalang has come to the conclusion that PD-Australia doesn't work on US soil unless they are pre-1946, so I comment those out when it comes to FAC" - Does this mean that he adds the images back after FAC? I'm a bit concerned here.
Not at all. No. These pictures were added before he told me that the template doesn't work, so I just comment them out at the FAC. None have come back, by me or by anyone else YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like the IP above, I was surprised about the lack of information on other aspects of Booth's life, but I take it from YM's response that there is little info available. I accept that.
Well he was famous for being a world-level sportsman and not a world-level pedagogue or preacher. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will be happy to support this article once the source issue is cleared up. Awadewit (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll email the owner of Psephos to ask what page the Vic election results came from YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I now have a herniated disk and cannot promise to keep responding here in a timely fashion. I will leave it up Ealdgyth and other reviewers to decide the source issue at this point. Awadewit (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No reply, so removed that part. Will try and find it in hard print later YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:31, 1 October 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, I've finally got around to a third nomination. After a long wikibreak, Tezkag72 and I have resolved the comments brought up at the previous nominations. Tezkag will be along to add his name and comments soon. I'm nominating because I sincerely believe the article meets the criteria and I'll resolve any critism as soon as I can. Third time lucky? EA SwyerTalkContributions 17:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technical points: external links are fine, no links to disambiguation page. The one image is valid fair use but needs alt text. Stifle (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've read WP:ALT and I don't know how to add the alt text to the album's infobox because the formatting is different from the examples given in WP:ALT. I'll try to find out. In the mean time, can someone help? -- EA SwyerTalkContributions 14:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no further objections and will support. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Links in quotations need to be removed per MOS:QUOTE and reviews in infobox should be sourced with citations to avoid linkrot per suggestion of the Album Wikiproject. Hekerui (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentShouldn't the second paragraph of the tour section have citations?bridies (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I vagely remember the references being removed because the material wasn't likely to be challenged. I have added 4 citations anyway, which should cover everything. -- EA SwyerTalkContributions 12:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks good now. bridies (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34th Street is a magazine, from which I cite a review of the album. No facts are taken from it. The facts from popdose used to be cited from Billboard until their website revamp (and now I can't find or cite anything from it). Will replace everyhit with Chart Stats, which WP:GOODCHARTS lists as reliable. -- EA SwyerTalkContributions 23:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UK chart positions now taken from Chart Stats. The facts taken from Popdose are from an interview with Billboard magazine's Director of Charts. I would cite directly from a page BB used to have on their website but their new website inspires expletives from me. -- EA SwyerTalkContributions 23:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this last one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - The one image in the article, which is fair use, meets WP:NFCC. Awadewit (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support but shouldn't references such as 27, 29 and 30 be placed after the punctuation? Spiderone 08:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. Due to the large number of references citing chart positions, I have tried to place the refs as near to the information as possible so a reader knows which source to look up. Otherwise some sentences would have half a dozen references after the fullstop. -- EA SwyerTalkContributions 14:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has MOS changed its stance on discouraging the use of decorative quote marks and encouraging block quotes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The border before fortification: inter-zonal barrier near Asbach in Thuringia, 1950
The newly strengthened border in 1962, with barbed-wire fences, watchtowers and minefields.
(link has been removed from page)
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-42998-0003,_R%C3%BCgen,_Grenzpolizei_der_DDR.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_Operations_Room.jpg){kind=link}
_map.svg){kind=link}
![[71]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AMarshalsea-gates-December2007.jpg&diff=28941509&oldid=19721091){kind=link}
![[72]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ADickens-at-the-Blacking-Warehouse.jpg&diff=28941644&oldid=28939443){kind=link}
![[73]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AInstruments_of_torture_used_in_the_Marshalsea_prison%2C_1729.JPG&diff=314838841&oldid=314834538){kind=link}
![[74]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AGen_james_oglethorpe.jpg&diff=28942072&oldid=28841532){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=314839160&oldid=314700435){kind=link}
![[75]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ASick_men%27s_ward_in_the_Marshalsea_prison.JPG&diff=314839338&oldid=314835502){kind=link}
![[76]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ACharles_Dickens.jpg&diff=28945899&oldid=28942596){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[77]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Second_Marshalsea_prison_in_the_19th_or_20th_century.png&diff=prev&oldid=314846291){kind=link}
![[78]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Plan_of_the_Marshalsea,_1843.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=314846355){kind=link}
![[79]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:John-Howard-prison-reformer2.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=314846565){kind=link}
![[80]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Charles_Dickens.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=28942596){kind=link}
![[81]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:London1300-marking_the_spot_of_the_future_Marshalsea.png&diff=prev&oldid=28942646){kind=link}
![[96]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AMyra_at_John_Kilbride%27s_grave.jpg&diff=316530368&oldid=182940405){kind=link}
![[125]](http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/gis/moms/june2003/spprich_MOM_web.jpg){kind=link}
