Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2009: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
archive 1
archive 4
Line 2: Line 2:
==November 2009==
==November 2009==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kerry slug/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kerry slug/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kala (album)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joey Hamilton/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna Anderson/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Derfflinger/archive1}}

Revision as of 19:23, 3 November 2009

November 2009

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 18:51, 3 November 2009 [1].

Kerry slug

Nominator(s): Snek01 (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because 1) previous candidate discussion did last 10 days although it should "lasts two to three weeks". 2) Everything was going good and every requests were fulfilled. 3) I think, that the one who closed the discussion accidentally added "not promoted" instead of "promoted". Snek01 (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no support in the first nomination—articles need both wide declared support and resolution of standing problems to pass. There was an Oppose that still stood in the first review, for example. Now, SandyGeorgia did say it could be re-nom'd "in a week or two"; you clearly have. Still, this nom should only continue after you've resolved (or explain why you shouldn't resolve) the remaining Oppose issues, and any other needed cleanup. If you've done so already, good luck! --an odd name 20:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As was the case with the first application for FA status, the rest of the members of Project Gastropods were not notified that the nominator was about to re-submit the article. I would have attempted to clean up the prose some more if I had known this was about to happen. As it was, it took me by surprise once again. Invertzoo (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • The article was not at FA standard when Sandy archived, and there have been no subsequent edits. Although the article improved considerably at its previous FAC, the changes were largely made by Invertzoo, whereas the nominator tended to argue instead. I suggest that the nominator withdraws the article for two weeks, and works with other contributors (who seemed surprised by the first nom) to get this ready for FAC. This is potentially a good FAC, but the nominator needs to get advice and help to cross the remaining hurdles. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you focus on constructive criticism, please? The fact, that nobody edited the article in last 18 days (since rash adding "not promoted") means, that NOBODY knows what else should be improved (if anything). Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that I for one did not edit the article during the last 18 days had more to do with the fact that I had no idea what was going on, and thought perhaps the attempt at FA had been given up completely for the foreseeable future. It was not because I thought that nothing needed fixing. Invertzoo (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am prepared to do some work here and now, as long as they are things that I know how to do. Invertzoo (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geomalacus maculosus, please clarify why bolded in lead, this is not normal practice, can you give a link to an MoS or Gastropod project policy?
Scientific name is more important than common name. It is in bold in (nearly all) every 5000 gastropod articles. (Bold scientific name is compatible with bold name in taxobox and usually it is compatible with article name. It is a part of guideline, how to write gastropod articles Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Taxonomy.) --Snek01 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An adult Kerry slug generally measures about don't need both "generally" and "about"
I changed this as suggested, thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is an arionid, which means it is a round-backed slug, and shares a lot of suggest It is an arionid, or round-backed slug, and shares many of
I changed this exactly as suggested, thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kerry slug is in the genus Geomalacus, which literally means "earth mollusc" surely the name of which means... . I'd be inclined to start with The Kerry slug's binomial name is Geomalacus maculosus and explain the words' meanings afterwards.
OK, great, changed that as suggested, thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the only species within the subgenus Geomalacus better to say there are two subgenera first, so we know where we are (especially as the genus and subgenus names are the same)
I change this around, hope it reads better now. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it has the same subgeneric name as the generic name, this means it is in the "nominate" subgenus, which means this slug is considered to be typical of the genus. I don't think that is what "nominate" means, please amend wording and give a wikilink to nominate
Took out the dubious wording and put in the wikilink, thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • redundant And as there are no other species within the subgenus, that means there are no other species quite like this one. that's what species means, not subgenus
Took out the dubious phrase. Invertzoo (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • William Andrews - does he need a link?
No, probably not notable. --Snek01 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its specific name maculosus means spotted, from the Latin word macula "spot"., - fine, but shouldn't this be with the explanation of the genus name?
It's there now, thanks for the suggestion, Invertzoo (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Color variation Image caption - why suddenly American spelling?
Sorry that's an accidental oversight, that was probably me, I have live in the US for over 30 years. Invertzoo (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although you have glossed Taylor's "shagreened" and "trifasciate", might read better if just replaced.
Replaced them, and yes it does read better, thank you. Invertzoo (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The salivary and digestive glands are the same as they are in Arion species Which is? Meaningless as it stands.
I tried to make this read better but we could remove it completely if this is not sufficient. Invertzoo (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before the reproductive system is described This para could also benefit in places by replacing technical terms rather than glossing, eg the proximal (near) end, why not just near end?
OK, fixed the most obvious ones of these. I previously did a fair bit of work on this section in an attempt to make it less dense and impenetrable, but am reluctant to simplify too many pieces of terminology for fear of removing the correct scientific vocabulary which is very precise and accurate. Invertzoo (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mating of this species is described in Platts & Speight (1988). Could you describe it for us please?
This source is unavailable for editors of the article. --Snek01 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As first time round, references are riddled with incorrect and inconsistent formatting, I'm disappointed that no effort has been made to fix this before returning to FAC
User:Fifelfoo wrote "consistent". Feel free to improve details by yourself or propose changes/improvements. --Snek01 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fifelfoo didn't write "correct". Fifelfoo (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the changes made so far. With respect to the references, I should point out that I did correct a good deal of the formatting last time around, but nothing further was doen my the nominator. The nominator had the opportunity to sort this before coming back to FAC, but chose not to do so. I am not prepared to put further effort into getting this article to FA if the nominator can't be bothered Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have improved punctuations in references. Is there anything else what could be improved? --Snek01 (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consistent style for dates, page numbers etc, journals, reports and books all italicised, journal names spelt out, not abbreviated, check for nonsense like (file created 26 February 2008) 2008 9 pp.. Do the reports have authors, year for the reports like the books and journals. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates are corrected: these two additional years are deleted.
  • Page numbers are unified (one correction made).
  • Journals are/were italicized correctly.
  • Books are/were italicized correctly.
  • Reports are not italicized, which is correct.
  • Journal names are not abbreviated and will not be abbreviated.
  • Reports have no authors if they are them not written.
  • There is not possible to add accessdate in cite conference template for EUNIS.
  • All references provide as much as informations as possible. --Snek01 (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to change the citation style refs to cite style for consistency. You don't have to have a Further Reading section, but if you keep some or all of it, you need to format those too and expand abbreviations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snek, strong arguments have been made above that this article was not ready to be brought back to FAC, because previous issues haven't been addressed; unless other contributors (like Invertzoo) are prepared to move forward here, the FAC should be withdrawn until the work can be completed. FAC is overloaded, we have to avoid having it used as peer review, and if the Project members state that there are still issues and that it wasn't ready to be re-nommed, those issues should be worked off-FAC. Please consult with them and advise. I apologize for not responding to your e-mail, and understand that may be part of the confusion here, but I prefer that FAC business be kept public. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody is prepared to move forward here, of course. At least abide with rules stated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and not delist it too early (at least in this case it was not useful at all). You recommend "Please consult with them and advise." I have consulted with you asked if its time to nominate, but you did not responded at all. Thank you cooperation. --Snek01 (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A note about FAC transparency (and my apology for not responding to the e-mail) here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The FAC instructions are clear that a nom should not be brought back until previous issues are resolved. Please have Invertzoo confirm if s/he is prepared to participate at this time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) All previous things ARE resolved. 2) She (and me too) was very surprised that FAC ended (see my talk page). Nobody (although long time wikipedia editors) understands the reason, why was (unreasonably - according to my point of view) FAC ended. --Snek01 (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nearly all of the images are incorrectly licensed. Copyright term of p.m.a. +70 years (i.e. {{PD-Old}}) is only the test for unpublished works. Published works have different criteria. As, per the sources, these are indeed published, alternative tagging is needed. {{PD-US}} would be appropriate for works published before 1.1.1923, as I believe all of them are. Эlcobbola talk 15:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All tags are correct. They are tags from Wikimedia Commons. They are not tags from English wikipedia, as you have linked. All images have added death date of their authors. (And, by the way, they were not published in the USA.) Everything is OK with licensing of them and there are even no alternatives for tags for these images. --Snek01 (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snek01, ElCobbola is a Commons administrator and a very knowledgeable editor wrt image issues; if he suggests something needs to be resolved, it will be expedient to heed his advice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being an administrator is not an guarantee of information always. --Snek01 (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Commons tags are in all ways germane identical (PD-US vs. {{PD-US}} and PD-Old vs. {{PD-Old}}); the en.wiki versions were linked only as an expedient way to demonstrate the difference. Please read my comment and the PD-US tags critically; the date of the author's death is irrelevant when the work has been published. The PD-US tag doesn't say it must have been published in the US. Эlcobbola talk 16:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) Images are in public domain, this means that LICENSE is OK on every image. 2) You probably wanted to say, that it could be also possible to add tag http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-1923 to the images also. I do not consider it necessary. There is nowhere written that such additional template is necessary and it is written nowhere in guidelines neither at Commons nor at English wikipedia. Theoretically maybe you will find such information somewhere and then add such additional template. --Snek01 (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snek, everyone agrees that the images are in the public domain, but images have to be tagged with an explanation of why they're in the public domain. The tags currently say that they are in the public domain because their creator died at least seventy years ago, but that is not why they are in the public domain, because that rule applies to unpublished works. The reason these works are in the public domain is that they were published before 1923, and that's what the tags should say. Steve Smith (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On my computer there is this text on image (for example File:Geomalacus maculosus 3.jpg) "This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies to the United States, Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years." This IS the reason: "because its copyright has expired" explaining why they are in the public domain. There is nowhere in guideline written that additional tag is necessary (that would be useless). Is the same text on your computer also? --Snek01 (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The problem is that the text is incorrect: it's not in the public domain because of the "life of the author plus 70 years" rule, it's in the public domain because of the pre-1923 publication rule. What is required isn't an additional copyright tag, but a different copyright tag, since the current one is incorrect. Steve Smith (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then improve TEXT of the template. After that I can decide to add a different tag, if it still will be needed. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The template isn't wrong. That template is for unpublished works. These are published, so their term is based on publication, not life of the author. You're welcome to read Title 17 or this "Reader's Digest version". Эlcobbola talk 18:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The text currently in there comes with that tag, because that tag is intended to be applied to works that are in the public domain by reason of the "life plus seventy" rule, which this one is not. The text on that tag is fine, it's just that that tag doesn't belong on these images. A different tag, with different text, is required here. I don't know how to be any clearer about this. Steve Smith (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have changed PD-old to the PD-old-70. Its OK now in this one image. --Snek01 (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to use {{PD-US}} instead, as {{PD-old-70}} still refers to the life plus seventy rule. Steve Smith (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) Link to exact template to be sure what you mean. 2) Alternativelly you can link to a DIFF of your edit and then I will understand or I will explain you what was incorrect with your edit. --Snek01 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elcobbola did link to the exact template above: commons:Template:PD-US. Steve Smith (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not possible to add because the image is not U.S. work. (That is very annoying to gave such primitive advices to an administrator and to student lawyer). --Snek01 (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, you're correct; the correct template is commons:Template:PD-1923. On another note, please do not strike out reviewers' comments unless they have confirmed that they are resolved. Steve Smith (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you will find a guideline which states that this additional template is necessary when there already is PD-old-70 template, then it can be added also. --Snek01 (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and suggest speedy archiving. Article does not currently meet 1a or 3, and nominator shows no willingness to acknowledge problems, let alone make any attempt to correct them. When FAC is backlogged, we can do without this. Steve Smith (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider, that images are tagged correctly. It was also checked in previous FAC. --Snek01 (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snek, it has been explained to you ad nauseam why the image tags are not correct. I do not know what else to tell you. Steve Smith (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snek, US law on copyright expiration is very complicated. This flowchart was created by copyright lawyers to figure it out. Isn't the result of the first decision yes? If not, please apply the decisions in the flowchart to the images in the article and report the path by which you get to “Expires 70 years after author’s death.” —teb728 t c 04:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC) As an example, suppose a work was published in 1925, the author died in 1935, and his heirs renewed the copyright in 1952. The path through the flowchart then is no, yes, yes, yes; so the copyright expires 95 years from publication in 2020—even though the author died 74 years ago. —teb728 t c 05:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your comment. I understand your point of view. I also understand comments and the same point of view of other participants. We together agree what the license of the file is. Then there is the task, what tag or tags will be the best. Files are hosted on Wikimedia Commons and primarily this should be resolved regardless of this FAC. Because if this FAC will be closed, then the problem will stay (from your point of view) unsolved. There are also many other possibilities how to solve this. No party did convinced other party yet. What do you suggest? --Snek01 (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pending resolution of the criterion three concerns noted above. This is an easily remediable and unambiguous issue. Simply astounding is the senseless combativeness and failure to recognize an untenable position. Эlcobbola talk 14:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a note to Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Public_domain_templates . I hope that tags of images be solved soon, so we will be able focus on other points of improvements of the article. I would like to thank to all reviewers for their comments. I would like to especially thank to reviewer Jimfbleak and I will try to focus on improving references, although I do not know how yet. I would like to thank to Invertzoo for improving the style. --Snek01 (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closer's note I am closing this nomination early because it is obvious that many of the problems that existed in the previous FAC have not been fixed. I strongly encourage the nominator to work closely with the significant contributors of this article, and engage the reviewers as necessary, to identify areas in which the article still needs to be improved. I will remove any further nominations that occur without work having been done on the article. Karanacs (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 19:23, 3 November 2009 [2].

Kala (album)

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I got M.I.A.'s first album to FA some months back, and feel this article is now of comparable quality. I think I've taken care of alt text, reliability and correct formatting of refs, correct licensing of images, etc, so all that remains is for people to pick my prose apart :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments Dabs and links fine. Current refs: What makes this reliable (used three separate times in refs 32, 43, 47)?

  • http://s26928.gridserver.com/info/?m=200705
    • It's part of her official site - if you go to http://www.miauk.com (apologies for any retinal damage that may be caused by looking at her website) and then click on "news" it takes you to the blog. To link directly to specific pages for earlier months, though, you have to use the gridserver URLs
  • Ref 1 needs an author.
    • Done
  • Ref 9's author is Robert Christgau (add it), but then you have to replace either that ref or the MSN Music one as they're written by the same author. The infobox reviews need POV spread.
    • Done - removed double Christgau review and inserted a less favourable one into the infobox
  • Ref 16's work is simply Remix.
    • Done
  • Ref 53's work is simply Stylus.
    • Done
  • Replace ref 74 with this as it's more notable due to being an awarding body.
    • Done
  • Replace ref 77 with the official Irish IRMA archive here.
    • Done
  • Using the "work. publisher" citing convention has ruined the refs' consistency. Either follow it for all refs or remove it for the ones you've used it on. It also throws up problems with web-only media like PopMatters being italicised.
    • All done now, I think, let me know if I missed any or got any wrong......

Other comments

  • WP:CHARTS limits the amounts of chart positions to 10 charts and 8 auxiliary charts. Remove some in the list.
    • Done
  • Try and put the Personnel section in two columns for enhanced readability.
    • Done

RB88 (T) 20:36, 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.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 19:23, 3 November 2009 [3].

Joey Hamilton

Nominator(s): Giants27(c|s) 17:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because prior to the first FAC it underwent a peer review by Brianboulton (talk · contribs) and Finetooth (talk · contribs). It also underwent a review by DoubleBlue (talk · contribs) (here). Following the FAC, Giants2008 (talk · contribs) reviewed it on the talk page. Finally, 66.213.50.2 (talk · contribs) peer reviewed it very recently. Thus, after five reviews before and after the FAC, I believe it is ready to become a Featured Article. Thanks, Giants27(c|s) 17:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Baseball Cube, is uneditable by the public (however you can send them an e-mail telling them about any inaccuracies) so I am of the belief that it's reliable. While Our Sports Central is fully reliable since it doesn't have any random blogger speaking their mind, it's simply an organization that reports on minor league sports. Finally, Fanhouse is usually unreliable however there are numerous writers who are not your random person and actually have a history with major publications. The author of that particular article won some writing award in 2004 or so, which in my opinion makes that particular article reliable.--Giants27(c|s) 17:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After a look, I couldn't find anything that proves my belief that they're reliable for the Baseball Cube and Our Sports Central, thus I replaced them with more reliable sources. However, I have kept the FanHouse ref because although it is called a "blog", it is owned by AOL and the writer along with others have received accolades for their work, which IMO shows accuracy.--Giants27(c|s) 18:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the fanhouse out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review, or lack thereof: No free images to use? Did you try looking through Flickr and possibly emailing some of the copyright holders to see if they will change their license? NW (Talk) 19:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do recognize there is an issue with it having no images. However, I've looked through Flickr a few times since I started work back in May, however the resulting image is copyrighted and out of focus and because of this, I opted to not contact the author about releasing it under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA.--Giants27(c|s) 19:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – No dabs present. Will offer a full review if there's ever a time that I'm not swamped in real life. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Hamilton had stints in training camp and the minor leagues which included some of the Padres and Reds affilates." Didn't like the way this read when I first saw it, and I think I know why. Try changing "which included" to "with" and put an apostrophe at the end of Reds, and this will be better.
  • "Hamilton became eligible for election in the Baseball Hall of Fame in 2009". "in" (first use) → "to".
  • Early life: "He attended Statesboro High School in Statesboro, Georgia." The previous sentence says he was from Statesboro, and it should be clear enough that there's where the high school was. Consider dropping the last two words for tighter prose.
  • I see some overlinking in the early part of the body. Basic words like elbow and sue do not need links, which can clutter up the text if overused.
  • "He was elected to the Georgia Southern University sports hall of fame in 1997." From reading the source, it looks like the official title is the Georgia Southern University Athletics Department Hall of Fame. If so, I'd imagine that should be used in the article.
  • San Diego Padres: "but ended winning the game 6–3 after Phil Clark hit a three run home run." Missing "up", and there should be a hyphen in "three run".
  • In the next sentence, remove the space after the dash in the win–loss record.
  • "In his fourth year in San Diego in 1997". Try "In 1997, his fourth year in San Diego".
  • Disabled list would be good to link to, since non-baseball fans won't immediately know what that is.
  • "There was a rumored trade around the 1998 MLB trade deadline that would have sent Hamilton to the Detroit Tigers but the trade never materialized." This is an example of redundant phrasing, with three "trade"s in a single sentence. Try making the third one "it", as in "but it never materialized".
  • Should the "game one"s and such be changed to "Game 1" etc.?

Will look at the rest later. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:35, 22 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 19:23, 3 November 2009 [4].

Anna Anderson

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


A notorious imposter who lept into a canal to kill herself, ran around naked on a Park Avenue roof, and spent time in an asylum, believed by some to be Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia (also a featured article). DrKiernan (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC) amended 09:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At my FAC I was told I could put all my inline citations at the end of their sentence if I wanted. I think this would be a good idea for you, particularly with the last line of the lead. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. The lead image's alt text should briefly say what Anderson looks like; this is obvious to the sighted reader who can see the image, but a visually impaired reader currently is given no clue. Eubulides (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to find a reliable source which describes her appearance, except in relation to someone else's features (i.e. "her nose is more prominent than Anastasia's", or "her eyes are the same colour as Anastasia's"). DrKiernan (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:ALT#Verifiability says, you don't need a reliable source merely to describe what's in an image, as the image verifies its own description. Obviously the alt text can't say "she looks like Anastasia!" but it can say what the image looks like. I wrote something. I noticed my edit was the first in more than a week: I hope the article's not frozen or anything. Eubulides (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No further comment, so I guess my draft alt text is good enough. By the way, I forgot to thank you for writing the alt text for the other images: thanks! Eubulides (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks! DrKiernan (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not especially keen on that reference, and tried (unsuccessfully) to remove it. However, it is written by John Godl, who also wrote an article on Anderson for the "European Royal History Journal" (reference number 3 in the article). So, if you consider that a reliable source, then Godl would count as an "acknowledged expert". I do not believe that the "European Royal History Journal" is a peer-reviewed academic journal, though I could be wrong, but the editor does claim to have a degree in history,[6] to only publish "serious and thoughtful research"[7], and is independent of Godl (and so a third-party). Godl's article is critiqued by Peter Kurth (who wrote the most substantial biography of Anderson) on his website: http://www.peterkurth.com/anna-anastasia.htm. So, that would perhaps count as "academic discourse". I think it is hard to argue that Godl is not a reliable source, given that he has published in the area and his work is criticised by others working on this subject. If your query relates to whether Archimandrite Serfes is a reliable publisher, then I can only say that he is a priest, and independent of Godl, so it would appear that he is (though not a professional one). I realise that some editors may consider this source to be on the border of acceptable, but I have a hard time coming up with a valid reason to reject it. DrKiernan (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but while it may meet the minimum requirements for WP:V, I'm not sure it meets the higher FA requirement. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering other academics are responding to this piece, it seems important to include, although it would be nice to find independent verification for the following information: Five years after the original testing was done, Dr. Terry Melton of the Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, stated that the DNA sequence tying Anderson to the Schanzkowska family was "still unique", though the database of DNA patterns at the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory had grown much larger, leading to "increased confidence that Anderson was indeed Franziska Schanzkowska". Awadewit (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article. This complicated narrative is clearly told - well done! The article is well-written, thoroughly researched, and comprehensive. I do have some minor suggestions:
  • I wonder if the lead goes into too much detail about the DNA testing in the third paragraph.
  • I'm curious how you decided on the naming scheme used in the article. While I had no trouble following the name changes for Anderson, I'm wondering if it could confuse others.
  • I, Anastasia: An autobiography with notes by Roland Krug von Nidda translated from the German by Oliver Coburn, London: Michael Joseph, 1958 - Needs an author
  • Clarke, William (2008), Romanoff Gold: The Lost Fortune of the Tsars, The History Press, - Needs a publication location
  • Lovell, James Blair (1991), Anastasia: The Lost Princess, Robson Books, - Needs a publication location

Thank you for working on this! Awadewit (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. Added the locations. I'm uncomfortable adding an author to I, Anastasia: there isn't one listed on the edition I'm using (1958). I think one is just supposed to infer that Anastasia wrote it. Modern editions give the author as Anna Anderson, though it was actually ghost-written in her name. The naming scheme came about because I decided that if one introduces her as "Anderson" in the first section the article loses some of its dramatic impetus. I think introducing her as an unknown helps to carry the story along. DrKiernan (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has had some fine, excellent work and represents a major tribute to scholastic overhauling. However, before it explodes on the Wikiworld scene of spectacular articles, I suggest-- as I have continuously done-- that the article's grammar and structure be streamlined. I have read high school term essays that read better than this article. With that one bit of editing, this article would indeed be exemplary. Hopefully, some of the inputters here would not be shy about reading and posting comments at the talk page! It is NOT a controversial subject!76.195.81.239 (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make some specific suggestions for what to improve? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions?--I could and I did, several times, at the talk page. But I wish to point out here that with user DrKiernan hogging all work in progress, those suggestions really don't matter, unless some admins come and read for themselves.76.195.81.239 (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see that many comments with regard to the prose. Considering the accusation you made above regarding high school essays, you should have no problem pointing out a litany of problems. However, there is no such list anywhere. If you can make one, I'm sure we would all be grateful, as it would only improve the writing of the article. With regards to your contention that DrKiernan is "hogging" the work, you should be aware that as the nominator of this article, s/he is supposed to respond to all the issues raised here and most articles that are brought to FAC have a "primary contributor" that does the majority of the work. Also, you should know that admins have nothing to do with this process. Thanks again! Awadewit (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awadewit, this IP editor is a former account who invoked right to vanish after his disruptive edits drew the attention of administrators. Typical posts include: [8] [9] and User talk:76.195.82.162. I do not consider his objections to the prose either justifiable or actionable. DrKiernan (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, DrK. I didn't know. Awadewit (talk) 13:14, 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.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 19:23, 3 November 2009 [10].

SMS Derfflinger

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This article passed GA in August and a joint MILHIST/SHIPS A-class review slightly less than a month ago. I feel this article is pretty comprehensive, and close to FA standards. The reviews that come here will help my iron out the last few details. I appreciate any and all constructive comments and suggestions. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - From the top
    • General
      • Too many commas. There are commas in places that they don't need to be, and it really disrupts the flow of the text. If I have time, I'll try to fix some of this tomorrow
    • Infobox and Lead
      • You've converted length, beam, and armament to both metric and imperial measurements. Could the same be done for the armour?
        • Done.
    • Construction
      • Is there any more information on the turbine damage suffered during trials? Was it from a collision, or simply from a technical design problem?
        • Nothing I've yet come across. It seems to have been technical malfunctions, I've seen nothing about a collision.
    • Bombardment of Scarborough, Hartlepool, and Whitby
      • Along with Seydlitz, the force consisted of Derfflinger, Moltke, Von der Tann, and Blücher, along with the light cruisers Kolberg, Strassburg, Stralsund.... The phrasing in this particular section just doesn't seem to flow very well at all. Is there any way to fix this. I think it's the repetition of "along with" that throws it off.
      • Twelve hours after Hipper left the Jade, the High Seas Fleet, consisting of 14 dreadnoughts and eight pre-dreadnoughts and a screening force of two armored cruisers, seven light cruisers, and 54 torpedo boats, departed to provide distant cover.[4]. Same problem as above. This sentence just flows very poorly. Can it be split somehow?
        • I rephrased both of those, do you think it's any better?
          • Much better.

Comments. I think this has legs, but will require some sifting through. I found a few things worthy of comment at the top. I'll try to get back to it, but may not.

  • "and featured significant improvements over the preceding German battlecruisers". "preceding" somehow implies they've been retired. "preceding battlecruiser designs" might be OK. Or just "previous"?
    • I substituted "previous" for "preceding"
  • Do we need two links to "WW1" in the lead? I'd remove the first one, because it judders against the "battlecruiser" link.
    • We certainly don't :)
  • "the majority of WW1"? More than 50%? I'd say "most of" or "more than half of" (more than the first half of?).
    • I'm not quite sure what you're saying here; Derfflinger was assigned to the I Scouting Group only a few months after the start of the war. I'd say that's the majority.
  • Nice map, although the borders look suspiciously modern. If there's a contemporaneous map without disadvantages, I'd use it instead. It's a small point, and the current one is OK.
    • I looked through Commons when I added that map, and it's really the best one we have for the purpose of giving readers a geographic understanding of the naval war.
  • Unnecessary passive voice (twice): "It was decided by Admiral Friedrich von Ingenohl, the commander of the High Seas Fleet, that another raid on the English coast was to be carried out." Consider "Admiral Friedrich von Ingenohl, the commander of the High Seas Fleet, decided to conduct another raid on the English coast." More vivid, simple, direct? Tony (talk) 06:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I substituted your suggestion for what's currently in the article. Thanks Tony.

Comments Not being generally familiar with warship articles, I was slightly surprised at the amount of coverage of the operations in which she took part that is not specific to this ship. If that's usual, the material must be duplicated in the articles for each ship in the fleet. I would have expected to find here only detail that was specific to this particular ship, and to be referred elsewhere for general accounts of fleet history and operations. Cyclopaedic (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's how I typically write these articles. I feel that some overlap is necessary; the article wouldn't make much sense to anyone who doesn't already know about the topic if it gives no contextual information about the various battles. Basically, I don't want to make someone have to read all of the battle articles (especially the Battle of Jutland article, which is over 100kb) in order that this one make sense. Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Generally well written article but there are problems:

  1. From 'Battle of Dogger Bank' subsection it is clear that Blücher sank. However, nowhere in the text this fact is directly stated. I think this probably the most event of the battle and it and its time should be mentioned.
    A couple of sentences have been added.
  2. In 'Bombardment of Yarmouth and Lowestoft' subsection the year of the battle is not specified. Readers are left on their own to guess if it happened in 1915 or 1916.
    Corrected.
  3. In the same subsection there is a sentence: At this point, Scheer, who had been warned of the Grand Fleet's sortie from Scapa Flow, turned back towards Germany. Please, explain who Sheer was. This name is not mentioned before.
    Done.
  4. In the next subsection (Jutland) Following severe damage inflicted by Lützow on Lion, Derfflinger lost sight of the British ship, and so transferred her fire to HMS Queen Mary at 17:16. Please, explain how this is possible? According to Battle_of_Jutland Queen Mary exploded at 16:25.
    That article is written in UTC, this one is in CET, so it's one hour ahead.
    I missed the note, however, I think the information about the time used should be made more prominent. Ruslik_Zero 12:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I think the article should mention that Queen Mary was not the first battle cruiser to sink. HMS_Indefatigable was the first.
    Done.
  6. The leading ships of the German battle fleet had by 18:00 come within effective range of the British ships, Please, explain what this means. Does it mean that the main High Seas Fleet came into contact with the fleet of Beatty? It is probably should be mentioned that Beatty's forces included 5th Battle Squadron.
    I don't mean to sound snarky, but did you read the rest of the sentence? and had begun trading shots with the British battlecruisers and Queen Elizabeth-class battleships seems pretty clear to me. How else can I make this clear? I have added a line about the 5th BS.
    I read the whole sentence. Since I do not understand two things: (1) What is German battle fleet? It is not defined. Is it High Seas Fleet? (2) Are the British ships, which met German battle fleet had by 18:00, the same as the British battlecruisers and Queen Elizabeth-class battleships? This is ambiguous.
    The sentence should be rewritten as: "The leading ships of the German High Seas fleet had by 18:00 come within effective range of the British battlecruisers and Queen Elizabeth-class battleships and had begun trading shots with them." Ruslik_Zero 18:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you did not answer I made the change myself. Ruslik_Zero 19:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A pause in the battle at dusk allowed Derfflinger ... Does this refer to the period between 18:00 and 21:00?
    Generally speaking, it's about the period of time between 20:20 (when Derfflinger et. al. abandoned the charge against the British line) and 21:10ish, when Beatty's ships attacked.
    Did myself. Ruslik_Zero 07:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the time should be specified. Ruslik_Zero 18:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I think overall the Battle of Jutland subsection is not very successful in summarizing the main article. It should be shortened and made more understandable.
Ruslik_Zero 08:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to the rest of this later, when I have the time. Parsecboy (talk) 11:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to your last comment, this section isn't supposed to summarize the Jutland article. It's supposed to emphasize the portions of the battle in which Derfflinger took part. If someone wants to know what the rest of the German fleet was doing at any specific point in time, they should read the battle article. Shortening the section will either: A) remove useful details, or: B) remove what context there currently exists that is necessary for an understanding of Derfflinger's actions. If there are sentences that aren't understandable, point them out so I can fix them. Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will read this section again. Ruslik_Zero 18:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One example. Are the following two sentences are really necessary? On May 22, the Wilhelmshaven dockyard reported the ship to be fit for duty, but tests carried out that night showed that the broadside torpedo flat that had been damaged by the mine was still not watertight, and there were still leaks in the fore and aft transverse bulkheads. Further repairs were necessary, and so the operation was postponed another week, by which time the Wilhelmshaven dockyard assured Scheer that the ship would be ready. Do they provide a necessary context? Are they necessary for understanding of Derfflinger? In my opinion, they would be appropriate in the article about Seydlitz, but not in this article. Ruslik_Zero 18:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are necessary, if only to explain the disconnect between Scheer wanting to launch another operation immediately, and then the month and a half in between Yarmouth and Jutland. If you remove the paragraph entirely, you essentially have no introduction to the battle. Parsecboy (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not propose to remove the paragraph entirely, but only two sentences listed above. Ruslik_Zero 18:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then you have no explanation why the operation was 2 weeks late from Scheer's original intended date. Parsecboy (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
but the mine damage to Seydlitz had proved difficult to repair—Scheer was unwilling to embark on a major raid without his battlecruiser forces at full strength Is not this enough? Ruslik_Zero 18:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the reader is left to assume that Seydlitz was repaired at some point between mid-May and the 31st. I'd rather be more specific than less in that kind of detail. Parsecboy (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At noon on 28 May, when the repairs to Seydlitz were finally completed is clear enough. In addition the paragraph about Wiesbaden is also too long. It does not mention Derfflinger and should be shortened. Ruslik_Zero 19:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine then. Derfflinger is one of the "German battlecruisers" mentioned throughout the Wiesbaden paragraph. I don't think it's necessary to say "German battlecruisers, including Derfflinger" every time the ships are mentioned. Parsecboy (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed two sentences. Ruslik_Zero 19:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Preliminary SUPPORT. Reiterating SUPPORT Article has undergone a few changes, based on subsequent comments from Jackyd and others. It is still good, actually BETTER, and I still support it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC) I gave this a thorough read at GA and again at the MilHistory review. It's a very good article, and certainly meets the criteria of coverage, prose, citation, in the FA criteria. I'll leave it to others to address images. That said, I have a couple more prose issues that weren't reasonable to deal with at GA but are now. [reply]

  • I agree with whoeveer it was above that quibbled on the "majority of" phrase. Majority usually refers to individual animate units, a majority of his peers, etc. If we wanted to show that apples in a barrel had gone bad, we would not say, the majority of the apples were bad, we would say most of the apples are bad. So I suspect what you need here is to say Derfflinger was part of the I Scouting Group for most of World War I, and was involved in several fleet actions during the war. It "sounds" very odd the other way. Or: From commissioning on 1 September 1914 to internment at Scapa Flow on 21 June 1919, Derfflinger was part of I Scouting group, and participated in several fleet actions during the war..... (then shorten sentence at the end of the paragraph.) OR  ???
  • Derfflinger was interned with the rest of the High Seas fleet at Scapa Flow following the armistice in November 1918. Under the orders of Rear Admiral Ludwig von Reuter, the interned ships were scuttled on 21 June 1919; Derfflinger sank at 14:45. Redundant. How about: Derfflinger was interned with the rest of the High Seas fleet at Scapa Flow under the orders of Rear Admiral Ludwig von Reuter. She sank at 14:45 on 21 June 1919.
  • in Jutland section: This engagement lasted only a few short minutes before Admiral Mauve turned his ships 8-points to starboard; the British inexplicably did not pursue. I know a regular minute is 60 seconds. How long is a short minute?  ;) How about just saying a few minute before Admiral Mauve turned his ships....
  • problem with time: why don't you just convert the time markings to the same set that are used in the your linked battles? Is there a standard?

Despite these nitpickings, Nitpickings addressed. This is an excellent article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to disambiguate the HMS Defense link.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This must have gotten lost in the shuffle, but I have now fixed this. Thanks for pointing that out. Parsecboy (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is a very nice article as far as it goes, but is there a reason why very little of the most excellent (and to my mind most relevant) technical information in Derfflinger class battlecruiser regarding armament, armour, propulsion and the like has made it into this article? Obviously only information concerning Derfflinger should appear, and then in a truncated form, but given the difference in quantity (and thereby, I'm afraid, quality) of technical data between the class article and the ship article it certainly feels like something is missing - I don't think a reader should have to read them both if they are looking for information about just the one ship. I also think the lead needs a rewrite - a the moment a lot of the sentences don't flow into one another - none of the sentences in the first paragraph really connect at all. That said, I think the historical sections of the article are excellent - the only problem is that they seem to be the only real substance the article has.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a good way of seeing my point is to look at the ship class article: there you have good technical sections, followed by brief histories of each ship. Here you should have brief technical sections followed by an extended history. Unfortunately at the moment the technical section is too small.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
do you mean more like the Seydlitz article? which has longer discussions of armament, design, weaponry, etc.? Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with that would be that Seydlitz was a unique vessel (and hence a class article did not exist) that was not a member of a class like Derfflinger was (so a class article does not exist in the case of Seydlitz. -MBK004 23:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing, I'm just asking to see if there is a parallel case in a different article he's written. I'm trying to understand the suggestion, I guess. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the Moltke class/and specific ships and the size of the development/description is the same. Actually, I liked it this way, because I get "bored" with the technical stuff, unless it is in the context of the battle descriptions. Which Parsecboy did -- he incorporated some of the technical material into the Derfflinger engagements. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I was too quick to judge as I see there is established precedent for this kind of layout (and note that I wasn't opposing until I'd had some feedback on this issue). To be completely honest, Seydlitz is closer to what I would expect in an FA than Moltke, although since another article covers it in greater detail the technical information doesn't need to be as extensive as in Seydlitz. I am therefore revising my suggestion to a mild expansion of technical data in the construction section (approximately another paragraph) and a clearer link to where this information can be found i.e. an {{dablink|For more details on this topic, see [[Derfflinger class battleship]].}} at the head of the construction section.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Auntieruth and MBK for participating in this discussion. I do think you (Jackyd) have a point that it could be a bit longer; I'll try to get to expanding it later in the week. Thanks for your suggestions. Parsecboy (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I finally got a bit of time to get to this; I fleshed out the section and added a {{details}} link to the class article. How does that look now? Parsecboy (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also tweaked the lead; the sentence about her namesake seemed out of place where it was, and it had a bit too much detail. I trimmed it slightly and put it at the end of the first para. How does it read now? Parsecboy (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) At a glace it looks much better, although I want to do one more read through before I support, and I won't have time to do it until tomorrow. Good job though.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as I did at its Milhist ACR, and I see no reason for it not to take the bronze star as well. As usual, made a couple of minor copyedits but generally the prose has continued to improve, and illustration, referencing and structure are top-notch. My only remaining suggestion is to lose the passive in In early January 1915, it became known that British ships were reconnoitering in the Dogger Bank area. Can we say to whom exactly it became known, e.g. In early January 1915, so-and-so (or such-and-such) became aware of British ships reconnoitering in the Dogger Bank area.? Well done no matter what, though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:41, 3 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/November_2009&oldid=323746751"