Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2009: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
promote 1 (rem from archive)
+ 5
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{TOClimit|3}}
==November 2009==
==November 2009==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Lloyd Waddy/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Historian/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Not One Less/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing 777/archive3}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Derfflinger/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Derfflinger/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buildings of Nuffield College, Oxford/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buildings of Nuffield College, Oxford/archive1}}

Revision as of 23:41, 8 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:41, 8 November 2009 [1].

John Lloyd Waddy

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Nominating this article on one of the RAAF's top-scoring fighter aces, who went on to become a New South Wales parliamentarian, because I think it fits the criteria. Currently GA, and A-Class on two Wikiprojects. Any and all comments welcome...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments

--an odd name 18:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the newspapers.nla.gov.au url is still being advertised from the main page of the NLA website http://www.nla.gov.au so this is probably just a temporary glitch. David Underdown (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly right David - I checked just after OddName's post and the whole site was not responding; it's now working fine as usual. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nla links are working now. :) --an odd name 02:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I think that this article is close to the FA criteria, but needs a little bit more work:
    • The statement that his half-share in a kill on 9 December 1941 was his 'first confirmed victory' is a bit imprecise - were there any unconfirmed victories before this? (if not, 'confirmed' could be left out to avoid confusion).
    • Do we know what 'Falkiner, Caldwell Pty Ltd' sold?
    • Was it unusual for ex-NSW ministers to continue to use 'Honourable' as their title? I thought that this is a standard courtesy Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same here but apparently not; my official source Parliamentary Record 1824–1999 makes a point of listing all retired MPs so entitled so 'twould appear it's not automatic... Cheers,
  • Support comments above addressed Nick-D (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Decline 1c 2c
    1. 2c 22:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
      1. Location nitpick, we all know Oxford for Osprey is Oxford, UK. Please specify due to US locations. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      2. Date formatting inconsistent. Author (Year) Title Provenance. or Author Title Provenance Year. Footnotes and bibliography conflict. Pick one. Accepting response below, the origin of the problem is the templates being ickypoo. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, I must've missed where I've used year in the footnotes - can you be more specific? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        fn 11 16 25 31 43 45 46. Compare ^ "Australian Industry SOS". Flight: p. 635. 19 October 1956. Retrieved on 25 September 2009. to ^ (19 October 1956) "Australian Industry SOS". Flight: p. 635. which is the style consistent with the references Draper, W.S. (ed.) (1980). Who's Who in Australia 1980. Melbourne: The Herald and Weekly Times. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        (Some one probably needs to produce Template:cite turabian with an autoshort option to avoid this style error produced by use of cite book in articles where it probably is a lesser option) Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        This is the conflict between consistently using the citation templates provided vs. enforcing a consistent style by manual formatting. I don't think it's something that should hold up promotion of an individual article. From memory (don't have time to experiment right now), cite journal renders Last, First (Date). Title etc... (like cite book) when Last and First are present but Title. Work. Date etc... if not. Frankly I prefer the latter to (Date). Title etc... even if it's not consistent with cite book. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      3. Multiple Author inconsistency. In bibliography: Last, First; Last2, First2. In notes, Last & Last2. Easiest solution, change notes to Last; Last2, format. Pick a solution. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        While it may appear more consistent, I'm not sure it's really an improvement, but I'll give it a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Another reason for someone to write cite turabian Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      4. fn16 requires a full citation (Staff, "R.A.A.F. Pilot's Greetings," The Canberra Times," 2 April 1943, p. 2. at Australian Newspapers. Retrieved.)Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough, a case of not tidying up early draft shorthand... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      5. fn32 and fn45 require full cites, ala fn16. Year, issue, page, etc...Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Ditto. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      6. Recheck spacing throughout, see fn30. versus fn25. Are you going to non-space or space page numbers?
        Ho-hum, the London Gazette template puts spaces in, I tend not to, I guess the template wins... ;-)
        Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      7. Recheck punctuation throughout, see fn1 versus fn2. Ending with fullstops or not? cheers Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Applying a similar rule to image captions, i.e. if it's all one phrase like fn2, no full stop. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Non decline related Comment: Footnote raiding from Alexander 2004, you don't use Garrisson, Air Commodore A D: Australian Fighter Aces 1914-1953. Air Power Studies Centre Fairbairn ACT and Australian War Memorial Canberra ACT 1999. . Why?
      See next point re. Garrison. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Support related comment: 1c mostly met, would like to hear why more detailed footnote raiding from sources wasn't done. Did you exhaust them rapidly, or are sources like Garrison1999Australian redundant given Thomas2002Tomahawk? Also would like to hear if Sabretache is a Highest Quality source, and about the publishers Aerospace (ACT) which moved suburbs 1995/6 and might be a backyard press, Also Kangaroo, Kenthurst NSW, and National Frenchs Forest NSW. This isn't a problem in 1c, the other sources meet the Highest Quality requirements, would like to know. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to jump in, Sabretache is the journal of the Military Historical Society of Australia (see [2]) and is very reliable. The author of the article in question, Kristen Alexander, is currently one of Australia's leading air historians, and has had two well-regarded biographies of RAAF figures published by a major firm in the last few years. Aerospace Publications is a small firm, but what they publish is reliable and works put out by them are held in the collection of university libraries such as the Australian Defence Force Academy. At the time the book in question was published they were the publisher of Australian Aviation magazine, which claims to have been Australia's largest selling aviation magazine at the time (see: [3]), though it's now owned by a different company). Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Nick. As far as the other comments go, Garrison is rendered redundant not so much by Thomas (though partly) but more by Newton's similarly-titled/themed Australian Air Aces. The general advantage Newton has is that for a number of the subjects (though not Waddy) he produces claim-by-claim analyses which Garrison does not. As far as Kangaroo and National go, have to admit I probably couldn't tell you anything about them you wouldn't find yourself on the web, but if the question relates to the reliability of the works I'd tend to look at the authors' pedigrees and their sourcing. As well as being a writer at Australian Aviation for at least 6 years, Newton's also been published by the Australian War Memorial, and his Australian Air Aces and Clash of Eagles rely on combat reports, unit histories and other official records from the RAAF Historical Section and the AWM. Odgers is one of Australia's official historians of World War II, and Air Force Australia is a book that was updated and republished four times in the 1980s and 90s. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

Lead
He then commanded... or he later commanded
Altered. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:Family etc. Second sentence/second paragraph about brothers is long and complicated. Can you break it up?

Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WWII

:Kittyhawks aren't linked?

The link for Kittyhawks and Tomahawks is the same, to Curtiss P-40; I've hopefully equated the two by removing Tomahawk from the piped link. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The RAAF's top-scoring ace, Clive "Killer" Caldwell, befriended and mentored him, and later became godfather to Waddy's daughter.
Waddy's first operational sortie was as Caldwell's wingman; he found the ensuing dogfight so fast and confusing that he had no idea what was happening and afterwards had to ask the more experienced pilot how things had gone In his first operational sortie, as Caldwell's wingman, he found the ensuing dogfight fast and confusing. Having no idea what had happened, afterwards he asked a more experienced pilot how things had gone....?
Tend to prefer the wording as I have it because I think it flows better that way, but still open to suggestions; "the more experienced pilot" refers to Caldwell without repeating his name in the same sentence. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just that passive or almost passive voice. It's an awkward sentence. In his first operational sortie, he found the dogfight fast and confusing; when it was over, he asked Caldwell how things had gone...? (Caldwell's lucky he didn't get his wing shot off, I suppose). Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On 9 December, however, he registered his first victory—in a Tomahawk that had previously been Caldwell's personal mount...
Felt the "however" aided the flow, implying that while he was confused in his early combat, by December he'd matured to the stage where he'd made his first kill. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By 9 December, he had become more accustomed to the dog-fighting pace, and made his first "kill" flying Caldwell's old Tomahawk. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
gazetted links to London Gazette...is this really what you mean?
Yep, this is a fairly standard expression/link in my experience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I didn't realize it linked to the gazette. We need an article, or stub or something that explains it better. Comes from the old times when officers usually purchased their commissions, instead of being gazetted (announced) based on their merit. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gazetted (unpiped) redirects to Gazette, which does also explain the use as a verb, but then so does London Gazette in the "Tradition" section. If you know what the use of Gazetted means in this context, you don't need to follow the link, if you don't you get taken to a highly relevant article, so I don't quite see the problem here. David Underdown (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe it could link to the traditions section....? That would make more sense. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:American air medal....US air medal? American could mean a lot of places (including Canada, although probably then you'd say Canadian).

No, you're right - altered. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Post War Career

:known as the Citizen Air Force (CAF)... known informally? also called .... colloquially known as....

Altered. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:close polling booths at 6 PM rather than 8 PM so as to expedite the reporting of results, and to change the term "Christian name" to "given name" on candidate nominations, in order to reflect changing community attitudes close polling booths at ... to expedite... The provisions also changed the term "Christian name" to "Given name" on candidate nominations, to reflect changing community attitudes....?

Again I felt it flowed in one sentence but have trimmed a few unnecessary words. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

: Link on Augean? (and capitalized, as it is in article title in Bibliography?)

Not sure about linking Augean, since the reference work is linked and the writer describes the meaning there. Have capitalised for consistency though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neat article! I like it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support
Remaining quibbles are trivial, and editor can adjust or not depending on his whims. This is a very well done article, good sources (reliable), and well cited. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - All images check out. Awadewit (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General - I realise that while responding to everyone's points I haven't actually thanked people for taking the time to review, which I usually like to do whether they're supportive or not, because that time and effort is not something to be taken for granted - so a general thank-you to all for your input thus far... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good article, well referenced and good read. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Very well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Firstly, the title of the article is wrong: Wikipedia:Use common names. Secondly, the article is incomplete: you've got three paragraphs about his being one of the most senior politicians in his state of his era, compared to two about his comparatively non-notable business career. What's there is fantastic, but it really needs more on his political career to be reasonably weighted - another couple of paragraphs would make it grand. Rebecca (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Rebecca. On the naming, we needed disambiguation due to more than one person called John Waddy having a WP article. I made a judgement call that including his middle name was an appropriate way to achieve that, and I'd prefer to hear additional opinions before changing as so far yours is the only objection. As to the weighting, unfortunately the information I've included on his political career is as much as I've been able to discover through a good deal of searching libraries and the web, short of mining further the parliamentary record, and I'm loathe to utilise such primary sources more than I've already done in order to give some examples of bills he sponsored. If you're aware of likely sources I've missed please point them out to me. Further, the two paragraphs that you suggest focussed on his "comparatively non-notable business career" in fact also discuss his leadership of the RAAF Reserve and his involvement in veterans' groups, so I believe the space allocated to his parliamentary career shows quite reasonable balance. In any case, while his political career is important, it must be remembered that his status as a fighter ace in North Africa alone would make him notable enough for a WP article, and I've in fact probably given less space to that period of his career than the political phase. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Something like John Waddy (politician) may be a more appropriate means of disambiguation; I really dislike seeing middle names where the person wasn't actually known by their full name. I don't think there's any need to use primary sources for his political career; I find it hard to believe there isn't a single book on the relatively-influential Askin government, and in any case, there's bound to be a ton of newspaper articles from the era that could shed further light. Rebecca (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I considered "(politician)" but, as I've said, he was just as notable for his air force career so one could also argue for John Waddy (RAAF officer), hence my plumping for the more neutral name we have now. As far as the Askin government goes, I've combed a number of general NSW political books with only those you see cited mentioning Waddy, though if I can get hold of The Prince & the Premier I'll double-check that I haven't missed anything useful there. I already searched unsuccessfully in the Mitchell Library and NAA online for the sort of biographical cuttings held for some public figures before I commenced the article in earnest. Coming back to your earlier point, however, I'm still not sure about your interpretation of the relative weight given to various phases of his career as they appear in the article at present, because the political part occupies a significant portion of it, certainly compared to other aspects of his post-war life. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ian, this looks good. I'll try to go through it in the next few days, but my RL work is heavy at the moment. Linking comments from the top:
    • "As a [[Fighter aircraft|fighter]] pilot during [[World War II]]. The "Fighter aircraft" article has a WWII section; you may or may not wish to section link (unless your point is to distinguish from "bomber" definitionally at the top of that link-target. Please note there's a separate article Fighter pilot, which may or may not be relevant. WWII—Isn't there an article on Australia in WWII, or even the Australian airforce in WWII? Please make the links as focused as possible.
      • Thanks for your review so far, Tony. Didn't know the fighter pilot article, that will be the preferable link. Re. WWII, I've always just linked the general world war articles in the past but I think you're right to suggest a more precise link. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Infobox pipe to Minister for Health lost info; I forgot to check for the other Minister bits.
    • Probably "referendum" and "daylight saving" are too common to require linking. Focus them on your valuable links, of which there are so many.
    • Most of the linking is very good.
  • Is the Tomahawk image specific to the Africa section? If not, text sandwiching could be avoided by placing it directly above the Morotai pic in the SW Pacific section.
  • Sorry to be a MoS bore: import–export. Space before and after ... Tony (talk) 06:00, 8 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:41, 8 November 2009 [4].

The Historian

Nominator(s): Awadewit (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC), Casliber[reply]


Vampires and scholars together in one book? What could be better? We look forward to your helpful commentary during this FAC. Awadewit (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Queries Hi Awadewit, nice read.
"When the narrator arrives at Saint-Matthieu-des-Pyrénées-Orientales in the 1970s, she finds her father. Individuals mentioned throughout the story converge in a final attempt to defeat Dracula. He is seemingly killed by a silver bullet fired into his heart by Helen." Either she found her parents, or the narrator fired the shot, or the shot was not fired in the 70s but in a previous time.
Is this better? "When the narrator arrives at Saint-Matthieu-des-Pyrénées-Orientales, she finds her father. Individuals mentioned throughout the 1970s timeline converge in a final attempt to defeat Dracula. He is seemingly killed by a silver bullet fired into his heart by Helen." Awadewit (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah the penny drops ϢereSpielChequers 06:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The 26-hour unabridged audio book, released by CS," Who is CS and can that be linked?
The source just says "CS" - I'm not sure what company it is. Does anyone else know? Awadewit (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The length is criticised but not stated - even in the infobox. Is the book long or short?
First, I'm against the infobox. You'll see my discussion with the editor who added it here. Second, I don't like including the page numbers because it does not really reveal how long the book is. Since each book uses a different font, font size, spacing between letters, and margins, the number of pages does not really express how long a book is. It is better to list the number of words. However, I have no idea how many words are in the book and no easy way to find it out. Awadewit (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be OK with criticised as too long instead of just the length was critised? I'm guessing from the subsequent "ponderous" comment that it was probably criticised as too long rather than too short. ϢereSpielChequers 08:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be fine. Awadewit (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The family travels to Europe in an attempt to cheer her up." But their last stated location was a tomb in the Balkans. ϢereSpielChequers 14:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for tolerating my pedanticisms ϢereSpielChequers 16:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I can't believe I forgot! WereSpielChequers added the alt text and I tweaked it a bit. Awadewit (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You missed one image, File:Historiancover.jpg; could you please do that too? Also, I suggest removing the phrases "Black-and-white photo of" and "Photograph of" as per WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid. Eubulides (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I felt that the caption described the cover image sufficiently. I think that media is important, especially when there is a mix in the article, so I think these should be kept. Awadewit (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning media is OK here, but alt text isn't optional for the lead image, as otherwise a screen reader will say some gibberish related to the file name. I added some; hope it's OK. Eubulides (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sony has bought the film rights and, as of 2007, were planning an adaptation. - any update?
  • Carrel - link?
  • dragon in the center associated with Dracula. - perhaps worth mentioning that "dracul" means "dragon"?
  • Paul Rossi disappears; smears of blood on his desk and the ceiling of his office are all that remain. - this phrasing suggests to me that he has ceased to exist, which is not the case, perhaps ...are the only traces?
  • The librarian is then run over and apparently killed by a car in front of the library. - perhaps The librarian is then run over by a car in front of the library and apparently killed.
  • either Dracula or one of his minions is still alive and continuing his legacy. - how can Dracula continue his own legacy?
  • ''They also singled out the voicing of Dracula for criticism - who was the speaker of this part?
  • Three refs have redlinks; personally I wouldn't do this, but your call
Done. Awadewit (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • See Lansing City Pulse - it is an alternative newspaper, with an online presence. Here is a list of its editorial staff. The article is being used to cite Kostova's views on Stoker. Here is the sentence from the article (found in the caption under Stoker's picture): According to Kostova, Bram Stoker"created Dracula as a brilliant figure; a creature that is part monster and part genius. Dracula represents the best and worst of us." Awadewit (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - a very fine article and I am happy to support. I read this some years ago, but cannot now remember many of the intricacies of the plot, although I did thoroughly enjoy the book. I have two questions below.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • How does she survive jumping off the cliff? Does she not jump or is merely injured?
  • Can the awards section be presented more neatly, perhaps in a short table? I also wonder if there is anything more to say on this: do we know if this is a good haul or not for such a high-selling novel? Since Kostova was aiming at literary fiction, has she commented on whether she was pleased or disappointed with the awards?
I much prefer the table, and I think that the detail is needed to clarify how she survived the suicide attempt. However neither is essential for my support, and I leave the decision on these things up to you. Regards and congratulations.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added bit about grass. Awadewit (talk) 01:11, 9 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:41, 8 November 2009 [5].

All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural)

Nominator(s): Ophois (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is up to standards. Ophois (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The non-free image rationales, especially that of File:Acheridemon.jpg, are not yet sufficient. All of them should state who holds their copyright, be more specific about their purpose, and must explain "why no free equivalent could reasonably be obtained or created to replace this media" in their "Replaceability" field.

Try something like what I wrote at File:Interactions Spider-Man.jpg—it might seem like I put too many details, but one can never be sure with non-free stuff. Take the safe route. --an odd name 19:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added more information to them. Hopefully that meets the FUR criteria. Ophois (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much nicer. I thought the only image that would be an issue was the bluescreen one, since bluescreens can be easily mentioned or described in the text; but since Flash mentions the demon one instead...maybe both can be cut? If either is kept, their alt text can probably mention the long hair of the child and the blood on some of the bluescreen men's faces, but I like all of the alt text otherwise. --an odd name 20:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think I can increase the blue-screen use by mentioning Jared Padalecki's bloody appearance, as he had to refilm without blood later when the script changed. Ophois (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query: have images been cleared here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any personal or policy issues with the images. The non-free rationales are good (they were vastly improved), and the free image (yay for those) fits the subject matter well. --an odd name 15:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Nice work, over all, huge improvement then what I saw before. Here's some things that need improving:
    • First off, there are four fairuse images. I think at least one can go and be replaced with a free use one. How about removing the image in writing, replacing it with File:EricKripkePaley2006.jpg ("Supernatural creator co-wrote both episodes" or something) and add the note about the diseased spirit into the text. Also on images, please downsize the main image - it's unnecessarily huge.
Well, the reason I had the picture and caption is because I couldn't find a place in the writing section for it. It's two lines of text that don't really fit with any of the paragraphs, so it interrupts the flow. Ophois (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IDK, I've seen it work like that in some South Park FAs. Check out Damien (South Park) or Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo to see how a new concept can be introduced fluently in one paragraph. The Flash {talk} 21:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ophois (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lead: "The once-epic script of "Part 2" had to[...]" - That just sounds biased, unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "epic." Reword a bit.
Well, epic means large or big. The original script was very complex and had them running to different churches and stuff. The final version skipped all of this, and was simple. Would "complex" work? Ophois (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Writing: "Thus, the writers were required to kill Sam in order to motivate Dean to sell his soul[...]" -> were they really required to do that? reword a bit
Done. Ophois (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reception: None of the websites need to be italicized.
Grammatically, websites are supposed to be italicized. Ophois (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Effects: (caption) "John Winchester's return had to be filmed in advance using blue screen due to the actor's busy schedule." -> "[...]due to Mogran's busy schedule."
Done. Ophois (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jerrica is listed as one of the site's main writers here. I don't know if that's enough. Ophois (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced yet, sorry. The site itself claims to be online since 2003 (which really isn't much time btw), but otherwise there's nothing about their editing guidelines and all, which means being even a main editor there doesn't really mean much. I would send it packing for byebye. --an odd name 21:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It doesn't even add that much to reception. The Flash {talk} 21:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ophois (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text is present (thanks), but the first alt text entry contains phrases ("demonically possessed", "with energy", "after being shot in the heart with a gun") that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image, and which therefore need to be removed or reworded (see Verifiability of alt text). Eubulides (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ophois (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you all feel that the article is up to standards enough for Support, can you please list so? The last article I nominated didn't pass because not enough people said whether they Supported/Opposed. Thanks. Ophois (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

an odd name, any other issues? Ophois (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got your talkpage ping. Let's see... Prose
  • lead—"wrap up many ... open up many" feels like repetitive prose, but I'm not quite sure how to fix.
Changed to "The episodes close various storylines running throughout the first two seasons, but also open up many new ones." Ophois (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Filming—"With only four nights to film the sequence, it was decided to have a "supernatural solar eclipse" so the scenes could be shot day for night." Do you know who decided this?
Production. The director just keeps saying "we", rather than referring to any specific person. Ophois (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed "we" to "production". Ophois (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checking again, this article uses "it was decided" five times—mix the wording up more. I wasn't thinking of supporting this article (see below), but less so now. 17:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Done. Ophois (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A less major problem (to me) is the use of "noun + -ing" throughout. There may be better ways of writing those sentences (see linked page). 17:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you give some examples from within the article? Ophois (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's minor to me, and a bit controversial (see the "More discussion" link on that page), and not all changes to this will actually improve the prose (it may become clumsier!), so don't take these as must-fix examples. The second sentence and last sentence of the lead, and the first sentence of para 2 of "Part 1", all use "noun+ing": "It is a two-part season finale, with "Part One" being first broadcast...", "...with Jessica Harmon gaining...", "...with the sole survivor becoming the leader...". --17:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I feel that it flows better that way. Ophois (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There may be more to add; I haven't really checked the article very closely (up to now at least) because I prefer to check shorter ones like Flash's "Interactions". --an odd name 17:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the above suggests, I'll stay neutral here. I prefer to save support for articles I can look over and quickly see that there's very little else to add, like Interactions and Battle for Naboo below. It does look very good, and is as long an article as a season finale with lots of coverage should get, all images have some sort of alt text, there's no dab links, and links all check out with the link checker tool, so I won't oppose or interfere. --an odd name 18:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the "Featured music" section goes against WP:MOSTV, which basically says not to list "featured music".

Specifically it says, "Do not just list music: Wikipedia is not a directory. In other words, provide context as to why these songs were used for the show." - Unless the companion books discuss why "Wrapped Around Your Finger" is used for the scene where Dean finds his brother, then it's just a list of songs.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I not list any songs? Or can I mention the songs for the "Road So Far" sequences and give an example or two of the rock songs used? Ophois (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the MOS, what you need it context for why the songs were chosen, not identifying where they are used. For example, Smallville#Music talks about the use of pop songs, but in context with how the producers wanted the song used (e.g., or "Memoria", Gough came up with the idea of using Evanescence's "My Immortal" for the final scene of the episode. Gough informed Wade-Reed as soon as he began working on the script what song he wanted to use for the closing scene, as he saw the song as being symbolically about mothers, and in that scene Clark is telling Martha that his first memory as a child was of his biological mother, Lara.). Without it, it's just a list, and IMDb keeps a list of all the songs on each individual episode page. Speaking of, it might be good to link directly to those two pages on IMDb. Also, there is no alt text for the Eric Kripke image. Gotta have it for free images as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does it go against policy to list a couple of the artists, such as the new version does? Ophois (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without context as to why the songs were chosen, or even the artists, it's still just a list. If the book itself doesn't go into detail as to why those songs were chosen, then I have to assume that they weren't that important to the episode to begin with.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I removed them, but added some score-related stuff. I also fixed the alt-text on the Kripke image. Ophois (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Because he had worked on the pilot episode of the series, Lennertz was happy to be the one to score the episode featuring the villain Azazel's death." - Why? Do we know what was special about the villain Azazel and the pilot? The sentence suggests there is a connection - I haven't read the whole page, so maybe I'm just missing something that was stated above.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does the new version make more sense? Ophois (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. When you say "theme", do you mean a "musical theme"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Ophois (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's probably obvious, but it should probably clarify "musical theme".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already done. Ophois (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made these edits, please check
  • Significant overlinking, for example Fredric Lehne is linked three times in the first four paras, plus the infobox
I think I've improved it. Ophois (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andy uses his mind-control abilities to telepathically send Dean their location. Better perhaps as Andy uses his mind-control abilities to send Dean his location telepathically
Done. Ophois (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jake comes to and fatally stabs him perhaps better Jake regains consciousness...
Done. Ophois (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • having given into his demonic side I think it should be "given in to.." since "in" is part of the verb
Done. Ophois (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Devil's Gate is inconsistently capitalised throughout
I only found one instance of this. I think you're confusing "Devil's Gate" with "devil's trap". The former is capitalized in the companion book, while the latter is not. Ophois (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the bark mulch used for the set had to contain manure. Why??
The source for the reason is from associatedcontent, which is blacklisted. The source I'm using for the article just says that it had to be used. Ophois (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • using tennis balls and a stand-in in place of the actors. How can you use tennis balls in place of an actor? If that's not what it means, what are the balls for?
As references for where the actors are supposed to be. Ophois (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref Eric Kripke, Sera Gamble, and Bob Singer. Supernatural season 2 DVD commentary - Year of DVD publication and publisher please try this
  • Ref Knight, Nicholas, (Season 2 Companion), p.115 - Missing year of publication, publisher and isbn. try this Season 1 also needs fixing
  • Suggestion, Why not retitle "References" as "Notes", create a new "References" with just the Knight books in it so that you can refer to the pages in notes as eg "Knight (2007) p21" so that you don't have to repeat the whole ref. See Ruff for an example of what I mean Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would probably be easier to just fill out Template:Cite book for the first instance of the season 2 companion book and the season 1 companion book. That way, you see the full citation in the references section, with the rest of them, but can leave the abbreviated form throughout without making any significant changes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does the new version suffice? Ophois (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current refs 5,11 and 19. These magazine articles were presumably written by someone? Please add authors
Done. Ophois (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm wondering what the point of "Cast and characters" section is? You list these people in the infobox, and then have a prose section that basically is personal observations about when they were last on the show. The only relevant info I see in the section is the bit about the producers liking Azazel enough to bring the character back, and Morgan's return. Given that everything about Morgan's return is covered again, couldn't we include the Azazel information somewhere else and drop the redundant re-listing of guest characters?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any suggestions on where the Azazel part could be moved to? Ophois (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm doing some c/eing I'll see if I can find a location that might help it. It's good info, I just feel like everything else around it is fluff material used to provide the real info a place to reside.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The character isn't evil. I'm assuming that it's supposed to be an outcast-ish sort of motivation, but it's from an audio commentary, so it doesn't go into detail. Ophois (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It just sounds weird. Without understanding what that means, the comment just seems odd. I love TBC, and without context it makes it difficult to keep. You said it was stated in the commentary...what if we try to reword it to be, "So-n-So characterizes her as...." - this way it alleviates interpretation on our part.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is that I don't know who said it, and I don't have access to the DVD. Ophois (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ophois (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ophois (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ophois (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Production wanted to keep the number of shots to a minimum for the opening of the Devil's Gate at the episode's climax, so they chose to include elements other than escaping demons."- Two things. Which episode? And how does including more elements keep the shots to a minimum? If there is a way to clarify this statement it needs to be done, because it reads like they actually introduced more things when it says they wanted to keep it low.
Oops. It was supposed to say "visual effects shots". I'll change it. Ophois (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No no...I understood that part. What got me was that they said they wanted to limit those, and then the following statement sounds like they added. When I read it, I'm left with the impression that the demons and other elements they want to add are digital elements, and not physical ones that would allow them to save money on digital stuff.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Demon smoke is the hardest visual effect for them to do, and it's easier to just blue screen someone in than create complex visual effects. Ophois (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but the sentence is still confusing. I don't know what "elements" they chose to include, and in what way that was different than the norm. The sentence really needs to explain that better. Otherwise, it just contradicts itself based on the words being used.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The new elements were the glimpses of previous villains. Ophois (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to work that in so that it makes better sense? I mean, the way you are explaining it, it sounds like the reused old stuff to save money. If that's not it, then it's still not clear, and I might need to see the whole excerpt from the source so I can understand better.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"'For the gates of Hell, we worked in prep to keep the shot count down,' recalls visual effects supervisor Ivan Hayden. 'But to dumb down the gates of Hell would not fly by any means. So instead of just having demon smoke shots, we shot elements of characters on blue screens dressed in wardrobes from past episodes - we had the Woman in White, Hook Man, the reaper - and we showed them in lightning flashes.'" Ophois (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so then we could say, "Production wanted to keep the number of shots to a minimum for the opening of the Devil's Gate at the episode's climax, so instead of digitally creating demon smoke shots, visual effects supervisor visual effects supervisor Ivan Hayden filmed stand-ins dressed as characters from past episodes—Woman in White, Hook Man, the Reaper—on a blue screen and inserted them into the scene in post-production." - Or something along those lines. Based on what he says, it appears that they chose to film live-action people as opposed to digitially creating those shots.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ophois (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the reception section, some of the reviews come across as promotional pieces you'd see when you're trying to sell something. For instance, the TV Guide review just pulls exerts from an excited comment, but doesn't really provide context as to why they found the episode so enjoyable. It's not enough to say "TV Guide liked the episode", because we're using them as a professional opinion and a professional opinion should be able to explain what was so good about it. (e.g., discussing an actor's performance, how the writers ended the season, etc.) - per the MOS on reception. Another example is, "The finale has also been described as "terrific" by Sci-fi.com,[28] "juicy" by Entertainment Weekly,[18] and just plain "wow" by TV Guide." - Ok, but why? I mean, as it stands right now, I'm referring to those statements, it looks more like we're trying to sell a DVD, because it looks like the stuff you'd find on a DVD boxset. Now, the Burns stuff is good because it provides us with reasons for why he liked and disliked things (quick point, it says "this episode" and we need to know which he is talking about).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New version suffice? Ophois (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall..much better. The only other thing I can think of is the statement: "Frederic Lehne received praise for his portrayal of the demon Azazel, described as "riveting",[31] "great", and "appropriately creepy"." - I understand that how we're using the terms, but I was wonder if the sources went into more detail about what made him so riveting, great, and creepy. It would just really benefit the article to have that context - though, if it's not really there I can live with how it is. The other thing is the award for Jessica Harmon, it seems odd to place it in the middle of critic reception, when it's not critical. It should probably go either at the top, or this could be one of those times when a single sentence paragraph will have to suffice at the very end. After all that, I'll look over everything again and so long as there are no more issues I'll give this article my full support. Great work so far.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't go into detail. They just briefly mention and praise the actors. I've moved the Jessica Harmon bit as a third paragraph. Ophois (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments What makes this reliable?

Dabs and links otherwise fine. RB88 (T) 18:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. Ophois (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else have any issues? Ophois (talk) 15:04, 2 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:41, 8 November 2009 [6].

Not One Less

Nominator(s): rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This article—about a fascinating, strange, and controversial film—has been carefully researched and been through a couple copyedits. I feel it meets all the FA criteria. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The toolbox reveals a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that too, but when you actually try the link it's fine. This is not the first time I've noticed the toolbox incorrectly marking links as dead; I don't know how exactly that tool works, so I'm not sure would could be causing it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that when I clicked on it the first time it was dead. However, it seems to have fixed itself. Sorry for the false alarm. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Very interesting article. The quotations in this sentence are not directly referenced: Zhang accused the festival of not being motivated by artistic concerns, and criticized the Western perception that all Chinese films must be either "pro-government" or "anti-government", referring to it as a "discrimination against Chinese films". —mattisse (Talk) 22:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any way you can integrate the "See also"s into the article? —mattisse (Talk) 00:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This looks generally very good.
    1. In one passage we refer to "another student (Zhang Mingshan)"; I couldn't find that name listed in the cast. Is it because it is a minor character? Also, it is not immediately apparent which Zhang left for the city. --JN466 01:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    2. The writing in general is excellent; this sentence was the first to strike me as not flowing properly: "The film ends with a series of title cards that recount what the characters went on to do after the film, and describe the problem of poverty in rural education in China." --JN466 02:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      1. I was also confused by Zhang Mingshan--she's not really a minor character (not critical to the plot, but she does spend much more time on-screen than most of the other people in the cast list). But the cast list in the article is copied directly off of the credits that roll at the end of the film, and this list (which is basically the same thing, just in Chinese), so I didn't add any characters who weren't listed there. Anyway, to kill two birds with one stone, I just removed Zhang Mingshan's name from the plot summary, as it's not super-important and just introduces unnecessary confusion. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      2. How about "At the end of the film, a series of title cards are superimposed on the screen. The first several describe what the major characters went on to do after the events of the film, and the last describes the problem of poverty in rural education in China." Would that be an improvement? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good article but I'd hate to see it made into a featured article while it has the cast list formatted as a Table. A cast list should be a list, preferably with additional descriptions or casting information. Tables are best reserved for multi column data that benefits from being sortable. So many editors take the Featured Articles as examples of best practice. I'd change it myself only not understanding any Chinese I'm worried I might inadvertently mess something up. -- Horkana (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The table is formatted as it is for good reason. This is an unusual film and its cast is not like that of most films on Wikipedia; for most characters here, there would be little prose-style information or casting information to write anyway. I see absolutely no harm in displaying the information as it is displayed currently, and this is precisely the reason we have WP:IAR. If you read the article it is very clear why the cast list here deserves different treatment than what is normal. Furthermore, I see absolutely nothing in Wikipedia:When to use tables saying that tables should only be used for "sortable" data, and that page even gives as an example of appropriate tables one containing "Person, birthdate, occupation". rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, presenting the information as a table is easier but the same information could be expressed as prose, the downside being it makes comparison at a glance between real job and fictional role a little harder. There are exceptions and I suppose this might be one of them but using tables for Cast lists is discouraged and some editors have an annoying a habit of pointing to Featured Articles as best practice so I felt I had to at least mention it. There are general rules about preferring prose over tables. It's not a Wikipedia rule and I'll have to finish reading Tufte but tables are best used for multi-column data. In HTML tables were intended for data but got used for layout instead for years and years until Stylesheets caught on properly. Made my preference known, I'll leave it at that, it's only a minor point.
  • +Support Ling.Nut (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have run through it and done some copy editing. I have a slight hesitation about the table format for the cast, as I think a cast list of descriptive prose might be more effective but don't feel strongly about the issue. This is a fascinating and comprehensive article; the plot section is especially well done and clearly presents the themes. The article is integrated and hangs together well. —mattisse (Talk) 14:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I - please consider it's been a while since I commented at FAC, apart from one outing this afternoon.... so I may be "out of touch". But, here you go...

  • "Wei is told not to lose any students" - this could be expanded on, i.e. lose them on a trip? lose them mentally?
  • It may be worth stating in the lead when the film is set, as for me, at least, a 13 year old sub teacher is quite a different concept!
  • Not sure about how the modern world feels about the use of "thus", but that's just me...
  • Could link to the actual 2000 Cannes Film Festival in the lead rather than the generic one.
  • "dropping out to pursue work" - perhaps it's obvious, but why was this happening?
  • "Not One Less was only Zhang Yimou's second film..." why only? Perhaps for the non-expert you could provide a context? And is it still the case or was it a fact at the time of filming only?
    • He and Gong Li were well-known for their close collaboration, before this and Keep Cool Gong Li had starred in all of his films. I could add a little blurb on their collaboration, but personally I think it's already apparent from the sentence (since it says that she starred in almost all his films before this). Anyway, this is not still the case (until Curse of the Golden Flower a couple years ago, all of Zhang's films since this one didn't have Gong Li), but at the time it was apparently a big deal. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Film or movie? Not sure if you mean to use these words interchangeably, not a big deal but I would be consistent.
    • I've been using them interchangeably just to mix things up a little...I don't really know the difference between the two. If one is more accurate here than the other, let me know and I'll see if I can replace them. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia for whatever reason decided articles would use the suffix (film) so I'd favour the word "film" in most cases but using "movie" occasionally does help reduce some of the repetition (or suggests a rephrase is needed). I can only guess that since "movie" is short for the more formal "motion picture" it is preferable to use the more succint more formal (encylopedic) wording. Also movie seems more like American than British English to me, film at least feels a bit more neutral (very subjective opinion I know). -- Horkana (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not One Less cast[11][14]" - not sure this mini-heading is needed. For nice placement of the refs, you could always introduce the table with a sentence along the lines of "The main cast of Not One Less included:[11][14]", perhaps?
  • "Location of Zhangjiakou, relative to Beijing." does that need a full stop?
  • "ad on TV." - a little colloquial - "an advertisement on television"?
  • "[19][12][20]" - not keen on out of order references. There may not be a MOS for it, but it's something that bugs me!

That's halfway roughly. If these comments are still welcome then feel free to ping me back to review the second half, sorry but I have RL things pressing urgently! Best. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support I greatly enjoyed reading this article. I think that it is well-written and contains all of the sections one would expect in a film article. The only reason I am not supporting at this time is because I have a question about Chinese sources below.

  • Not One Less was only Zhang Yimou's second film not to star Gong Li (the first was his 1997 Keep Cool). - How many films had he made overall?
  • Rotten Tomatoes gave it a "fresh" 95% rating,[55] and Metacritic gave it a 73, signifying "generally favorable reviews". - Please integrate this sentence into one of the earlier paragraphs on reception. It looks lonely by itself!
  • I'm curious as to what has been published in Chinese sources? Might these provide different perspectives on the film?

I look forward to supporting this soon. Awadewit (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to support this article. Awadewit (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last comments

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 5 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:41, 8 November 2009 [7].

Boeing 777

Nominator(s): SynergyStar (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it has improved significantly over the past year, benefiting from Wiki's article review process, and in the process attaining GA and currently A-Class status. Suggestions from a recent Peer Review along with a 2008 FA nomination have also been implemented. Upon mutual agreement with fellow primary editors on the talk page, I am submitting this article for your evaluation. Thanks in advance for your consultation and advice. Sincerely, SynergyStar (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The most common 777 variant used worldwide is the 777-200ER, an extended range version of the original 777-200, with 412 aircraft delivered as of July 31, 2009.[1] In total, 56 customers have placed orders for 1,116 aircraft, with 798 delivered as of July 31, 2009.[1]" Repetitions of the same date and reference are unnecessary. What about this? "As of July 31, 2009, the most common 777 variant used worldwide is the 777-200ER, an extended range version of the original 777-200; 412 aircraft have been delivered, and 56 customers have placed orders for a total of 1,116 aircraft, with 798 delivered.[1]"
Done. Rewritten to "The most common 777 variant used worldwide is the 777-200ER, an extended range version of the original 777-200, with 412 aircraft delivered. As of July 31, 2009, 56 customers have placed orders for 1,116 777s, with 798 delivered.[1]"
  • My dict. says "dub" means to name unofficially.
Done. Changed to "named".
  • There are lots of important links, so I'd be rationing those you can, like the repetition of the "wide-body" link within 15 seconds. Why is "computer" linked? Why not just the more specific "Everett" linked, with the state not linked (it's a "chain" link, isn't it?). Europe linked? Ummmm ....
Done. 2nd wide-body link moved; computer link removed by colleague Fnlayson. "Everett factory" only linked now; no states or continents linked.
  • Do the images all have to be tiny? The cockpit image is detail-rich, so why not force the pixel width to ... 250? A few others could be enlarged. Have you thought of joining a few of the pics of the aircraft lower down into one group? (Not sure of the term for this). Tony (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sizes changed. You mean a gallery of the different 777 variants? For image size, it's possible using the "upright=1.4" code to make the cockpit photo larger, although individual users could adjust their preferences for large thumb sizes. Thanks for your comments and suggestions! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A thumbnail size was added to about 3 of the more detailed images. Maybe you mean a multiple image box with the images stacked or side by side. I'm not sure that is needed, except maybe in the Design section. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for your comments. Flight Global is a reliable source, it is the website of the world's oldest continuously-published aerospace weekly publication, Flight International. The SeatGuru reference is more unusual; the ref is simply to point out that the abbreviations 772 and 773 have been used. I've replaced that with a Japan Airlines official reference. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on criterion 3 - File:Vietnam airlines boeing777.jpg - The source link for this image is broken and the licensing is unclear. Who is the author of this photo? The original upload history does not seem to indicate that the original uploader was the author, which suggests that the copyright holder is someone else. To check this out, we need to look at the source. Awadewit (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on prose. Was there a competition to get "777" into every line at least twice? Seeing the article text from some way away it looks as if it has been hit by a repeating text vandal. Obviously a lot of "777"s & model variants are needed, but a great number can just be dropped, & others rephrased by the use of words like "model, aircraft, type, variant, version". Is:

To accommodate production of its new airliner, Boeing doubled the size of the Everett factory at the cost of nearly US$1.5 billion[23] to provide space for two new assembly lines.[24] New production methodologies were developed for the aircraft, including a turn machine which could rotate fuselage subassemblies 180 degrees, giving workers access to upper body sections.[29] Major assembly of the first prototype began on January 4, 1993.[38] By the start of production, the program had amassed 118 firm orders, with options for 95 more from 10 airlines.[39] Total investment in the program was estimated at over US$4 billion from Boeing, with an additional US$2 billion from suppliers.[40]

really any less clear (in context) than:

To accommodate production of its new airliner, Boeing doubled the size of the Everett factory at the cost of nearly US$1.5 billion[23] to provide space for two new 777 assembly lines.[24] New production methodologies were developed for the aircraft, including a turn machine which could rotate fuselage subassemblies 180 degrees, giving workers access to upper body sections.[29] Major assembly of the first 777 prototype began on January 4, 1993.[38] By the start of 777 production, the program had amassed 118 firm orders, with options for 95 more from 10 airlines.[39] Total investment in the 777 program was estimated at over US$4 billion from Boeing, with an additional US$2 billion from suppliers.[40]

- which has far fewer 777s than some passages? Nothing added to my version, just all 4 "777"s removed. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Changes are in work. They should be done in a couple days. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I had some time today--went through each article section and pruned "777"s. Changes include the revision of the above paragraph to the exact "777"-less version. Thanks for the suggestion. SynergyStar (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks [10]. That's resolved. I won't support just yet, as I haven't read the article thoroughly, & don't know the area. I'll see what other points get raised. Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Slightly weakly as it is a bit of a fact-clogged read, but I know that rather goes with the territory. A bit more strategic analysis would be nice. The lead should perhaps mention 2 or more the model's "firsts" - all designed by computer, & with the help of the 8 airlines. If it was me I'd put a pic next to the TOC to use all that space. But clearly covers the ground & I think meets the criteria. Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support and comments. Per your suggestions, the lead section now has a photo next to the TOC; and mentions the "firsts" - computer design, fly-by-wire, 8 airlines. If there are any particular strategic discussion points, those could be added. SynergyStar (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read the article through and would support it for promotion. I did not observe any significant errors, though I stumbled on the word "fit" in: In designing the 777 as its first fly-by-wire commercial aircraft, Boeing decided to retain conventional control yokes rather than fit sidestick controllers as used in many fly-by-wire fighter aircraft and in some Airbus transports. Does this mean fit as in make space for or fit as in outfitting?
  • As a general interest reader without a background in aviation engineering, the second half of the article is quite difficult (aside from being extremely boring). I would be interested in expansion of the "Development" section, if possible from the available sources, at the expense of the some of the detail in the following sections (e.g. available engines for different models and their thrusts) if necessary. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fit was used there to mean use, install, or equip with side stick controllers. Boeing stayed with conventional yokes instead of switching. I changed the wording to clarify that. A lot of the content from the Variants section has already was moved to the Development section over the last year or so. There's little notable detail left to add to the Development section and it is getting somewhat long now as is. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support, comments, and edits. Yes, the different variants and their engine choices can be rather dry to the uninitiated reader, but it's in the interest of being comprehensive regarding their defining characteristics. We've worked to make the variants sections simpler and more readable, but further improvements are always possible. SynergyStar (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I understand now how you've set it up, I think it is effective. I didn't really mean I felt there was too much in the article of that sort of information, just that any future expansion should probably be in the direction of further fleshing out the first sections and addressing non-technical issues, e.g. what kind of revenues/profits has the plane produced for Boeing, that sort of thing. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Thanks for the suggestion, I've added a paragraph to the Next-generation models section summarizing the status of the 777 program so far as revenues and profits thus far, from the sources I've been able to track down. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything else preventing support? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I saw the appeal for reviewers, was a little bit reluctant as a fellow aviation editor to partake but I'm here now as I know how it feels to watch an article review stagnate. I'm going to use bullets if that is ok.
  • Lead - Has blue links to variants, I expected to go to another article but they are linking to article sections, seems abnormal practise to me, possibly too much detail on variants. Dimensions are precise, better to round them or leave them out completely using words like longer, shorter, bigger, better etc. No mention of the alternative Rolls-Royce Trent engine. No mention of the 'Incidents and accidents' section, a fair sized accident was caused by a Trent sub-system.
  • Article length - At 81 kb it would seem entirely reasonable to me to split off the variants section to Boeing 777 variants or List of Boeing 777 variants leaving a reasonable summary behind. The number rich specification table for the variants could go there as well to be replaced by the usual standard aircraft specification table for just one main variant.
  • Images - The glass cockpit image could be edited to remove the glaring backlight from the windows. The infobox image has a tree in it (bottom left), it could be edited out (is that the best inflight 777 image on Commons? Have not looked myself).

Have not looked at the text or any references yet, I think some basics need to be addressed first. I am happy to help if you agree that the changes are needed, I can edit the photographs if desired. My impression is that it is a big article, lots of input from enthusiastic editors that has turned it towards unencyclopedic for 'laymen readers' with too many raw numbers which may well be masking the underlying story. Don't stone me please!!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think there was that many numbers mentioned in the Lead, but fair point. True, the other engines are not mentioned in the Lead, only the GE90. There's little to say in summary of the 777's safety record except it's been very good with just 1 hull loss over 15 years of service. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments here, and also during the recent Peer Review; let me also address them in bullets.
  • Lead - blue links to variants removed; RR Trent mentioned. Fnlayson addressed the Trent sub-system.
  • Some detail from the variants section has since been removed, leaving pertinent summary information. Per WP:SIZE, it is the readable prose that is measured, not the 81 kb (including refs); currently the article stands at ~10,000 total prose words (50 kb); the specifications table is 455 words.
  • Regarding precise numbers vs. adjectives, several in the lead have been replaced. Further examples could be considered for replacement with generalized statements, if pointed out.
  • The image glare--feel free to edit the image as you see fit. Same with the lead photo.
Those should address the basics, thanks for the help! SynergyStar (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of cropping the tree branches yesterday but felt the little bit of tree gave some perspective on how close it was to the ground and was in the corner largely out of the way. It's been cropped now so nevermind... -Fnlayson (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can revert to the version with the tree if you like!! I have edited the glass cockpit image as well. There are a number of good flight images on Commons with the aircraft flying right to left (towards the text), it might sound daft but there is a guideline I believe for images of people to be facing the text if possible, I try to do this with aircraft and even engines (propshaft towards the text) for the infobox image. Lead looks better, I still think that the good safety record should be mentioned in the lead as a summary of the article contents. On design perhaps there could be a little more content on how it all works, I am thinking of the third criteria at WP:DETAIL (for readers that want to know everything!), how many hydraulic systems does it have, what happens if both engines stop, does it have a ram air turbine? Just examples of what I am thinking of, don't feel that you need to go off and add these specific details. On article length it is your judgement call. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. RAT added; all photos save the lead (which was by consensus at the time), I had already selected to face article center; the lead pic is now aligned as well. A safety statement has been added as well. Edits to trim the variants section have removed about 4 kB, 13 references, and several hundred words regarding orders, engine details, etc. SynergyStar (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I noticed that several news citations from news media were missing the authors of the articles. Similar articles cited from the same news media have authors listed elsewhere; specifically, Flight Global and/or Flight International, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. --Born2flie (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for highlighting this, some of them were transferred by an editor who switched the {{cite web}} format to a plain text one; however some Flight Global / Flight International references do not state an author because the actual article is uncredited (probably staff writer): e.g. [11], "World Airliner Census". Flight International. SynergyStar (talk) 05:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Though I'd add my 2 cents to the review. I like the article, it has indepth coverage and a very healthy set of references to support the statements made. The History coverage is very good, and I believe this is one of the best articles for aircraft on Wikipedia. It does niggle me slightly that the page now uses plain text when it once used {{cite web}} templates, but I suppose it is a matter of debate that the cite templates are inherantly better. Though you are almost certainly already aware of it, Boeing 747 is an FA already, if you need some inspiration and looking for ways to improve this one, I can't suggest any better way than to take a look at either the 747 article, or my personal favourite Airbus A380; it may help, it may not. This article gets my vote already though! Good luck on the review. Kyteto (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support and comments. Indeed, many prefer the {{cite web}} template and I implemented them on the article a year ago, but they have since been replaced. I did inquire about a faster way to convert them back, but it's a rather difficult process. At least the references are consistent per requirements. SynergyStar (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - There is still some work that can be done to better meet criterion 1(a). I think the article should easily be featured article quality with only a small amount of work in response to comments here during the review. --Born2flie (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In many places, it would be simpler to state the type designation ("777") rather than wordy phrases such as, "its new proposed wide body aircraft".
    • The second paragraph in Design effort states, "$US11 billion" when it should be "US$11 billion".
    • "Divided into 240 design teams of up to 40 members, working on individual components of the aircraft, almost 1,500 design issues were addressed." Who? This sentence is written so that the 1,500 design issues were divided into 240 design teams with 40 members each. It is also written in a passive voice. I would recommend that it reference the development team of the preceding sentence as a subject.
    • "On May 15, 1995, Boeing completed the first 777 delivery to United Airlines." Couldn't that just be said as, "On May 15, 1995, Boeing delivered the first 777 to United Airlines."? This may just be a writing style preference for me.
    • Re: -300ER first flight in Next-generation models: Is certification achieved or received? Also, passive voice used again when a more direct voice would be shorter and clearer.
    • "Fly-by-wire" is only linked in lead and doesn't show up again until the second subsection of the Development. Might want to link it again. I found myself wanting to click there, and I know what fly-by-wire means.
Done. Fnlayson and I have implemented your suggestions: US$11 billion changed; 1,500 design changed; May 15, 1995 changed; -300ER first flight changed; fly-by-wire relinked.
Regarding stating '777', the euphemisms were added because of FAC comments above stating that the '777' word appeared too often. I've added back '777' over the above wordy phrase, and in several other locations. Thanks for your support! SynergyStar (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Italics is improperly used in some references; companies and websites are not italicized. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this sample edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see additional effort here on prose redundancy (some of my edits might not be optimal, but I do see issues), numbers next to each other that are hard to read, and undefined jargon ("uncommanded thrust reduction" lead me to see that thrust is never defined or linked, so I suspect there may be other issues). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. Companies and websites not italicized in references. On prose: redundant "all", "total of", etc. removed; instances of two numbers replaced; and multiple wikilinks added (thrust linked, heat exchanger, among others; some wikilinks repeated if they are far apart). Thanks for the suggestions. SynergyStar (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but with entreaty for continued work on jargon reduction, clarification, and prose improvement in the after glow of the bronze star. :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is obviously packed with details as, I'm guessing, such an article should, but it also has much more jargon than such an article needs. The prose still has speed bumps, and some things are confusing. Here are examples from the lead:

  • It is commonly referred to as the "Triple Seven" and is the world's largest twinjet
    • (In an encyclopedia sentence, the more important part should come first): "The world's largest twinjet, it is commonly referred to as the "Triple Seven."
  • The aircraft has seating for over 300 passengers and has a range from 5,235 to 9,380 nautical miles (9,695 to 17,372 km).
    • The range part is not clear, you need to clarify, as in: "The aircraft has seating for over 300 passengers and has a range that varies between 5,235 to 9,380 nautical miles (9,695 to 17,372 km) depending upon the model."
  • Distinguishing features include the largest diameter turbofan engines ...
    • (Remember, these are not specs in a web page, where one can skimp on grammar): "Its distinguishing features include ...
  • it is Boeing's first fly-by-wire airliner ...
    • (The link for "fly-by-wire" is not very helpful; it gets around to explaining the term only in the fourth paragraph.) Perhaps, it should be briefly explained in a clause: "As Boeing's first fly-by-wire airliner, it has computer mediated controls; it is also the first entirely computer-designed commercial aircraft."
  • The 777 is produced in two fuselage lengths, signified by the -200 and -300 designations.
    • (Jargon: signified by the -200 and -300 designations) Are these lengths in feet? If so, why not say it? "The 777 is produced in two fuselage lengths: 200 ft and 300 ft, and designated the -200 and -300 models." If not, then you should really give the actual lengths (which I couldn't find in my cursory read).

You obviously know more about the topic than I do, so you will have to find the best approach to reducing the jargon, especially in the lead. A new reader doesn't want to be zapped with fancy-schmancy terms as a part of their welcome. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, getting better, but still concerned about jargon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is ... varies between x to y ... correct English ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "from" x to y. Have incorporated the above, save fuselage lengths (in progress). Thanks for the support and suggestions. Regarding jargon, identification of further examples that need attention would be appreciated. Thanks for the comments. SynergyStar (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fuselage length has been added; I tried the individual lengths, but perhaps simply stating that one is # longer is simpler [12]. In addition, jargon has been removed from several sections, and eliminated entirely or replaced with more general statements. SynergyStar (talk) 23:59, 8 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 promoted by Karanacs 19:23, 3 November 2009 [13].

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.
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 18:51, 3 November 2009 [15].

Buildings of Nuffield College, Oxford

Nominator(s): BencherliteTalk 11:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Was it a mere co-incidence that construction work at this college started just one year after the Australian cricket team's 1948 tour of England? How many horse-owning medieval bishops had links to the college? How was the college affected by the 1991 Atlantic hurricane season? Read this "unexpectedly interesting" (in the words of Johnbod) article and find out... BencherliteTalk 11:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Nice hook! A few things:

  • Lead: The first mention of Nuffield College (the one in bold) needs to be wikilinked surely? Why is the second mention instead?
  • The image caption to the right of the lead, while perfectly accurate, is uninformative. Can you add a bit more detail (front of the college? anything interesting?). I find captions of a couple of words pointless.
  • The lead focuses heavily on the designs and then the assessment, while little mention is made of the construction (one line I think) and buildings. Could a little more emphasis be given to these? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding was that links weren't used in the bold type of the opening sentence; Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford starts in a similar way, for instance. If my understanding of the MOS is wrong, I'm sure someone will give me chapter and verse.
  • Good idea. I've expanded the caption, with a wikilink to Nuffield College for good measure. I should add that I'm trying to get some more photographs relicensed from Flickr, so might be able to use a brighter photograph before the end of this FAC.
  • Another good idea; added a short paragraph. Let me know if you think more is needed. Glad you liked the hook! BencherliteTalk 15:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those additions are very good, I don't think more is needed. On the first instance wikilinking I'm not entirely sure of MoS policy on this one. However, I would have thought, purely for convenience, it would be the case to wikilink the first one; it may be in some articles that the title elements are not mentioned again for a while. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1c 2c. Decline: 1c. "^ a b Kay, Diane "Architecture", in Harrison. p. 503, quoting Richards, J. M. "Recent building in Oxford and Cambridge" Architectural Review (August 1952) p. 75" Locate and cite from original. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no requirement that we cite from the original publication. The above practice is used in academia and I see no Wikipedia policy that prevents us from following it here. What is good enough for scholars is good enough for us. :) Awadewit (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is from me for the requirements of 1c at FAC. Academics recontextualise all the time, and wikipedia is held to its internal standards, which for FACs meand 1c. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: citations are consistently formatted. Is this, "Hibbert, Christopher, ed (1992). "Nuffield College". The Encyclopaedia of Oxford. Pan Macmillan. ISBN 0333486145." a signed encyclopedia article? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Kay's quoting of Richards: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT says to cite what you've seen, which is what I have done. What is the difficulty with this, please? The journal issue isn't available online (not even through JSTOR) and although I've now put out a request at WP:REX for help, I've only had intermittent success there in the past.
  • I don't have the book in front of me at present, so can't answer directly. What would be the problem if it wasn't? I may be able to reassure you in a different way when I get hold of the book, since my recollection is that not only is the encyclopaedia edited by an eminent historian (Christopher Hibbert) and published by a reputable publishing company, but it was written by a number of authorities in their field. BencherliteTalk 10:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Say where you got it is good advice, and even reasonable when RS quotes unpublished material, or material which is actually difficult to acquire (copies of government reports known to have sketchy publication and library collection histories). When its an RS quoting an RS, well researched as an expectation includes locating and using the original RS, instead of quoting a quote. The FUTON bias of wikipedia is not an excuse here, interlibrary loans exist. As do libraries which would hold the resource themselves. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, someone has offered to go to Richmond reference library for me next week to track down the article, so fingers crossed. Does anyone have anything else in the meantime? Incidentally, I've added a couple more Flickr-relicensed photographs, including an aerial view of the college, which I hope increase reviewers' enjoyment. BencherliteTalk 10:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update User:David Underdown has obtained the article, verified the quotation and will scan the pages to me later. BencherliteTalk 14:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have indeed verified the quote, and the scans are even now winging their way to Bencherlite. For the avoidance of doubt, the full paragraphs that Richards devotes to Nuffield are, if anythign, even more damning than the brief quotes used:

We have, however, to travel to Oxford to find a large-scale example of a period-style architecture which has no justification whatever on the grounds of consideration for the neighbours and represents missed opportunity of a really tragic kind. The first instalment of the new Nuffield College (architects, Harrison, Barnes and Hubbard) is now complete and occupied [ref to image]. Its site is in New Road, between Carfax and the railway station, well away from the ancient colleges, and surrounded mostly by undistinguished nineteenth century commercial buildings. It therfore presented a rare opportunity of contributing to the architecture of Oxford something belonging, as does the foundation of Nuffield College, specifically to the twentieth century, and of showing that Oxford does not live only in thepast. The clean simple lines of a modern building would have brought a breath of fresh air and sanity into the local medley of reminiscent styles, and have pioneered the rehabilitation of Oxford on sensible lines. The architects, instead, havechosen (or have been required to build) a reminissence of a Cotswold maor, complete with high-pitched gabled roof covered with stone slabs, stone-roofed dormers, mullioned bay windows and the rest. The planning is no doubt efficient and the accommodation all it should be, but this kind of compromise betwenn contemporary needs and what is imagined to be the English collegiate tradition is quite unworthy of the educational enterprise the new foundation represents. One recalls wistfully and wonderingly the far more sensitive, as well as far more contemporary, work the same architects have achieved elsewhere, notably in the Near East. The one thing to be thankful for about their latest building is that they have been content to use smooth-faced stone for its walls int he proper Oxford style and have not been tempted, in their search for rustic verilisimilitude, ito the use of rubble facing, as introduced in so many other parts of Oxford with extraordinary unpleasing results. On the other hand, if one endeavours to meet collegiate Tudor on its own ground, one still cannot fell that the most has been made of such pictorial charm as this style is capable of; for by painting the window frames and bars in a dark colour instead of light the architects have sacrificed much of the refinement of proportion, leaving the windows—especially the dormers—to read as gloomy apertures without scale or sparkle.

  • (outdent) My thanks again; I have safely received the scans and added some of this to the article whilst you were adding it here! BencherliteTalk 22:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ouch! What a damning response. Looking around the variety of Universities in Australia I've been in, there is something for the architecture of the 20th century. Though we also have demountables from the 1940s listed due to their heritage status! Fifelfoo (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As expected, a very fine article and an interesting read. I assume from the article that there has been no building work of any significance (either planned or executed) relating to the college since the early 1960s? The article implies as much but doesn't make it explicit (unless I missed something).--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I've not found anything saying that there has been further building work, but I've not found anything explicitly saying that there hasn't been, so I think keeping it implicit in the article is probably the best method. BencherliteTalk 12:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds sensible to me. Good job.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:56, 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.
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 18:51, 3 November 2009 [16].

Interstate 68

Nominator(s): Algorerhythms (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the criteria. I've attempted to address all the concerns brought up at the first FAC, and I've addressed everything brought up at the second FAC (there weren't many comments...), so I've decided to try again. - Algorerhythms (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images checked in previous FAC; please let us know if they have changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The US Route abbreviations are defined twice.
    I've removed the second definition.
  • County Route 73/73?
    Yes, County Route 73/73 is the designation of the former route from Green Ridge State Forest Cooper's Rock State Forest to Bruceton Mills.
  • Exit #10 - try exit 10 instead?
    Changed.
    All the Exit 10s in the RD should be lowercased. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed.
  • WV xx currently violates WP:USSH. Note that there is a slightly similar situation currently being discussed at WT:USRD.
    What would be the correct abbreviation to use, then?
    • Route xx. That being said, pay attention to WT:USRD just in case it changes in the next few days. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I've changed the abbreviations in the text to the "Route xx" form. The abbreviations in the exit list haven't changed, as most of them are placed there by the jct template. - Algorerhythms (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fail to see how "WV xx" and "MD xx" violate WP:USSH. I'm not seeing anything there that really discusses this issue. MDSHA frequently uses "MD xx" and WVDOH commonly uses "WV xx" or a variant ("West Virginia xx", "W. Va. xx") in its publications. Never "Route xx." Dropping the state name also brings in potential for confusion in a multi-state article like this. Brian Powell (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Minor followup - WP:USRD/STDS shows using the state abbreviation for linked text. It specifically gives "WV 10 ALT" as an example. Why be inconsistent? Use the state abbreviation (or whatever a state commonly uses, like SR for Ohio and Virginia) in the text. Brian Powell (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          I'm fine with keeping the abbreviations as "WV xx" and "MD xx". Those seem to be the abbreviations most used by WVDOH and MDSHA, and though the page Rschen7754 cited says to use the format "West Virginia Route xx", it does seem to leave open the possibility of using "WV xx" as an abbreviation in the text. In addition, in the case of Maryland, the Maryland Roads Wikiproject editing guide specifically mentions using "MD nn" as an abbreviation. - Algorerhythms (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree completely. As I commented at WT:USRD, abbreviations should definitely be allowed if it serves as a abbreviation of the USSH common name. In this case, the common name is "West Virginia Route #", so "WV #" should be fine. Other states do this too: New York articles use "NY #" for "New York State Route #" and Vermont articles use "VT #" for "Vermont Route #", to list a couple of examples. This is clearly a case where USSH doesn't match the consensus-accepted de facto practice. – TMF 04:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Or rather, USSH doesn't address this consensus-accepted practice. – TMF 04:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I-68 is also advertised to drivers on I-70 as an "alternate route to Ohio and points west" by the Maryland State Highway Administration." - cite?
    The citation I was previously using has started blocking external linking, so if I link to it, it shows up as a dead link in the link checker tool. I've been trying to find another reference for it, though.
  • "Three miles (five kilometers) east of Grantsville, US 219 leaves the National Freeway to run northward towards Meyersdale, Pennsylvania, while I-68 continues eastward, crossing Savage Mountain before entering Allegany County.[2]" - you've got a sentence paragraph.
    Merged into the paragraph above it.
  • MD xx - see above.
  • Can you combine references 20, 21, 22?
    I've merged references 20 and 21, but 22 refers to a separate file, so it doesn't really make sense to merge it. - Algorerhythms (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise no problems, should be a support once changes made. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:44, 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.
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 18:51, 3 November 2009 [17].

St. Johns River

Nominator(s): Moni3 (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This one's a bit longer than my previous FAC, so apologies, but I hope the writing compels you to read it all the way through. I don't know how it's possible, but a million people a day cross this river and completely ignore it. Here's hoping this article might change that...silly me. Note: I read WP:ALT on providing alt text for galleries, and I'm not quite sure how to replace the gallery with the div tags and still have the title. Please note for alt text that the top two images are at Template:St. Johns River geobox but it does not show with the alt checker tool. Enjoy, and thank you for reading it. Moni3 (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks good at first glance. Naturally, I checked the Rainfall and climate section first, which is equally good. I just had one comment: "Tropical storms and nor'easters are common occurrences along the Atlantic coast of Florida" – this appears to be attributed to the document about TS Fay's rainfall (which doesn't fully support it, as far as I can tell), and to my understanding, nor'easters aren't called nor'easters until they emerge around the Outer Banks of North Carolina. Could you get a more specific source for this bit? –Juliancolton | Talk 18:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it really needs a cite? --Moni3 (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I wouldn't, but since I'm not sure if this information is entirely accurate, I think a source would be good to have. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just struggling to cite something that's so obvious. I don't understand the relation to the Outer Banks and nor'easters per your definition. I'm somewhat inclined to ask you for a citation on that. I found an article (Beach Erosion Potential for Severe Nor'easters Beach Erosion Potential for Severe Nor'easters Keqi Zhang, Bruce C. Douglas, Stephen P. Leatherman Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Spring, 2001), pp. 309-321) that provides a formula for predicting beach erosion from nor'easters in Florida so they're common enough to warrant a formula. A second article (DOLAN, R. and DAVIS, R.E., 1992. An intensity scale for Atlantic northeast storms. Journal of Coastal Research, 8(4), 840–853.)) discusses all Atlantic storms, mentioning: "A second track commonly associated with strong northeasters ("Florida Low") develops near the Florida peninsula and travels north-northeast (Figure 6). These systems are common in March, coincident with an early spring extratropical cyclone maximum (KLEIN, 1957)." Plus, I've been through twice as many nor'easters as I have hurricanes, including the 1993 Storm of the Century that blew the shingles off the roof I was living in, and another unfortunate incident where I was unlucky enough to be on the beach for as briefly as possible. I know my experiences are OR, but...I didn't think this needed a cite. --Moni3 (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The storms labeled as "nor'easters" in Florida are often merely the precursors to the nor'easters. In fact, the 1993 storm's effects in Florida were limited to that of a squall line, if I recall correctly. I'd just like to see a reliable source added to the article that says developed nor'easters are present in the state, and you seem to have uncovered quite a few. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review all of the many images are appropriate and have satisfactory copyright licences. All except in the gallery have alt text (I tweaked a couple). Can the gallery images have alt text if that's possible? Needs only to be very simple eg "large white bird". Also, several alt text have US-only measurements (miles, feet inches) without the metric equivalents. I'll do a full review later if I get time, it looks very good at first glance Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Text comments Well written by an experienced FA author, but inevitably a few nitpicks (incidentally, I've birded from a bridge over this river)
  • please see if you're happy with these changes
  • elevation drop - reads oddly to a Brit, what about a drop in elevation ? Or altitude?
  • At a shallow 9 square miles (23 km2), - I'd expect a depth to follow the opening words, not an area, can this be written more clearly?
  • during alligator mating season the grunts of bulls join in - um - to me it should be the bulls joining in, not the grunts
  • bird species' capitalisation is inconsistent between text and gallery
  • St. Johns muck Apostrophe somewhere?
  • US gallons but U.S. is this correct?
  • Several smaller locations along the river sprung up - sprang?
  • over a million in population - a population of more than a million?
  • The majority of rivers in the Northern Hemisphere tend to flow south towards the equator, probably caused by the force of the earth's rotation. - I don't think this is true, the great rivers of Russia all flow north, and a relatively small river in Florida seems a less notable exception. Is Rivers of North America a reliable source for the whole of the hemisphere? Might be better to change the "northern hemisphere" to "North America"?
  • Acidic properties of rainwater erode portions of the limestone that can form underground caverns. - clunky, what about Acidic rainwater erodes the limestone and can form underground caverns?
  • Undeveloped land sold well and draining to reclaim wetlands has often gone unchecked, and instead encouraged by government. perhaps Undeveloped land sold well and draining to reclaim wetlands has often gone unchecked, and often encouraged by government.
Good luck (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Jimfbleak. I think I've taken care of most of your points. The US Gal is from the convert template, so let me see if they have a U.S. Gal or something similar. As for the northern-flowing river, that fact has been challenged on the talk page, here. It is supported by what appear to be two very good, scholarly sources. These sources do not discuss all rivers in the Northern Hemisphere. I am unable to use them to discuss why rivers in the Northern Hemisphere flow the way they do, just the St. Johns. Let me know if you have suggestions of others I should check out. Thanks for the time you took to read and comment on the article. --Moni3 (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck most, I'm happy with the northward river explanation. I understand your reasoning for the phrasing, and there is an RS even if the fact stated is demonstrably false. Of the other outstanding, two are trivial, the US/U.S. is really just seeking clarification, for all I know it could be perfectly correct (BE tends to use US anyway), but the different capitalisation of the birds in the text and gallery is a bit glaring - Wood Stork even has two different capitalisations within the gallery. I look forward to supporting soon, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No serious issues left, up to you what you do with the gallery, now supporting Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: as one of the million who cross this river every day, I'm ashamed to admit that I don't really notice it unless there's a waterspout or a boat accident to grab my attention. I don't have the time to give this a proper read at the moment, but at a glance it looks fabulous. Two incredibly minor things about the gallery, though: first, why are there two pictures of wood storks in the gallery? Out of all the awesome birds to display (Osprey, Anhinga, Great Blue Heron, etc., etc.), why show one of the ugliest -- twice? Second, I see that the Latin names of the birds are redirects; coragyps atratus is simply known as Black Vulture, for example. Minorest of minor comments, I know, so just slap me with a fish and consider this a placeholder for the real review to come. María (habla conmigo) 19:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would Mrs. Wood Stork agree with your assessment of her ugly children? I think not. However, the images were the only aspect of the article I kept when I rewrote it. I can find something to replace the second wood stork: an image of a bird just as hideous if it pleases you. As for the redirects, that seems to be something in the MOS that flips and flops: there was an effort a year ago or so to make all articles go directly to scientific names, so I guess that petered out. Maybe it will come back, like Pet Rocks. I think it looks more professional the way it appears now, though. Let me know if you have other suggestions. I appreciate and anticipate the review to come. --Moni3 (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Anhinga would be most appropriate, given its restricted US range, whereas Osprey has a global distribution, and the heron is found over most N&C Am
I'm looking for images where the birds were photographed somewhere near the St. Johns. I have an image of an egret I took at Lake George, and I'm scanning the US Fish and Wildlife website for images of birds in central and north Florida... --Moni3 (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I think Osprey would be a good choice if only because it's the mascot of a local university, but a Water Turkey or two would do. If needed, I can take a picture of the goofy one that frequents my backyard. Hours of entertainment, he is. María (habla conmigo) 14:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is mostly present (thanks) but it is missing for:
Also:
  • Please remove the phrases "Photograph of", "Image of", "Image showing" from the alt text, as per WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid.
  • Please remove from alt text the phrases "Blue Spring", "at one of its widest points", "downtown Jacksonville showing several tall buildings and the Main Street Bridge", "Geneva, Florida following Tropical Storm Fay", "1876", "at the time", "from 1903", "Lake Monroe", "former marshland converted"; please see WP:ALT#Verifiability and WP:ALT#Repetition.
Eubulides (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The wood stork image has been changed. I've added alt text to the image gallery, but the way it appears on my browser looks bad. Is there a way to force 4 images on one line and 4 on the next? Right now, it shows 7 images on the first line and 1 image on the bottom. --Moni3 (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It shows all eight in one line on mine, but I've tweaked to 4+4, which I think looks better anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see four and four as well, but the top level is shifted right and the bottom is centered. --Moni3 (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{Image gallery}} arranges as many images as can fit into the first row, and then similarly for later rows. Forcing 4 images on one line and 4 on the next doesn't work well for viewers with smaller screens or narrower browser windows, because the images on the right aren't viewable without scrolling. The previous two comments were evidently made by editors who have big screens; we can't assume that readers-on-netbooks will as well. The tweak to 4+4 will actually display as 3+1+3+1 on narrower screens, so I'd change it back. Eubulides (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that many of the problems mentioned above were fixed; thanks. I fixed all the remaining problems I found. Eubulides (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 1 (USGS...) needs publisher and last access date
  • 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
  • What makes http://www.wildflorida.com/articles/Wild_Monkeys_in_Florida.php a reliable source?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
wildflorida.com, according to the About us page, is written by three Floridians, two of whom are professionals in the field of wildlife biology. The citation is supported by two other sources and merely provides an alternative suggestion about how Rhesus monkeys arrived in Florida. For its purpose, I believe the source is reliable.
I don't use cite templates. I've italicized one instance of a newspaper not in italics. If I find more, I'll fix them.
I agree with your comment on ref 1. It's in a template, which I've never seen before, on Template:St._Johns_River_geobox and I did not add it to the article. I don't know why the USGS spells it as Saint Johns River either. I'll see what I can find to fix it. If anyone else has any tips, I'd be glad to hear them. Screw it. I fixed it myself. --Moni3 (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the other out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support (by Finetooth) Comments: This is fascinating, exceedingly well-written, and beautifully illustrated. I plan to review the whole article, but I thought it would be better to post my comments in two or three installments than to delay posting the fraction that is done. The first installment runs through "Springs and aquifers".

*Lead

  • Wouldn't it be better to express the elevation drop as 30 feet (9.1 m) rather than such a tiny fraction of a kilometer?
  • "It was named one of 14 American Heritage Rivers in 1998, but included on a list of America's Ten Most Endangered Rivers in 2008." - Add "was" and delete comma? That is, "in 1998 but was included"?
  • "Restoration efforts are underway for the basins around the St. Johns as Florida continues to deal with population increases in its vicinity." - Perhaps, "in the river's vicinity"? Otherwise it might mean "in Florida's vicinity"?
  • Middle basin
  • "Of vertebrates, numerous species of frogs, salamanders, snakes, and turtles, and alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) proliferate marsh waters." - Add "in"; i.e., "proliferate in marsh waters"?
  • Lake George
  • "an extremely rare Timucua totem representing an owl was found buried and preserved in the St. Johns muck off of Hontoon Island... " - I believe this is the first mention of the Timucua in the article. If so, the word should be linked here and perhaps briefly explained.
  • "Larger land animals find it easier to live in the flatwoods, such as wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo), sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis), and the largest population of southern bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus leucocephalus) in the contiguous U.S." - Perhaps slightly better would be "Larger land animals such as wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo), sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis), and the largest population of southern bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus leucocephalus) in the contiguous U.S. find it easier to live in the flatwoods."
  • "Typical mammals that live in these ecosystems are ones that prefer dry, flat areas with good ground cover and available nesting sites such as raccoons (Procyon lotor), opossums (Didelphis virginiana), bobcats (Lynx rufus), white tailed-deer (Odocoileus virginianus)." Here, too, I would suggest moving the list so that it bumps against the main noun; i.e. "Mammals such as as raccoons (Procyon lotor), opossums (Didelphis virginiana), bobcats (Lynx rufus), white tailed-deer (Odocoileus virginianus) that typically live in these ecosystems are ones that prefer dry, flat areas with good ground cover and available nesting sites."
  • Ocklawaha River
  • "The Silver River, fed by one of Florida's most productive springs producing 54,000,000 US gallons (200,000,000 L) daily, is located about midway along the 96-mile (154 km) long Ocklawaha." - Revise slightly to avoid repeating "produce"? Delete "long" to avoid triple-hyphen situation. Maybe "The Silver River, fed by one of Florida's most productive springs at 54,000,000 US gallons (200,000,000 L) daily, is located about midway along the 96-mile (154 km) Ocklawaha."
  • "Like the St. Johns, the Ocklawaha is also a northern-flowing river." - Tighten to "also flows north"?
  • "Paddlewheel boats made the journey from Jacksonville to Silver Springs... " - Wikilink Jacksonville and Silver Springs? It might also be helpful to make clear here that Jacksonville is near the mouth of the St. Johns and that Silver Springs is on the Silver River. Also helpful might be to include the distance by river between the two end points of the paddlewheel trips.
  • "then make the return journey prompted by phases of the moon, to spawn and die" - Perhaps slightly better would be "then, prompted by the phases of the moon, make the return journey to spawn and die".
  • Lower basin
  • "the river ranges between 600–2,640 feet (180–800 m)" - I always want to substitute "and" for en dashes used in this way perhaps because I can't read the en dash aloud. Do other people stumble on these? I'm not sure, but I thought it worth mentioning.
  • "For the final 35 miles (56 km) of the river's course, it runs through the city of Jacksonville... " - Tighten to "The final 35 miles (56 km) of the river's course runs through the city of Jacksonville... "?
  • "Using an unofficial nickname of "The River City", Jacksonville's culture is centered on the St. Johns" - Suggestion: "Using an unofficial nickname of 'The River City', Jacksonville has a culture centered on the St. Johns."
  • "Where freshwater invertebrates inhabiting and comprising algae and periphyton make the foundation of food webs in the middle and lower basin, zooplankton and phytoplankton take that role in the estuarine habitat." - "Where" confused me at first. Would "although" be better?
  • Formation and hydrology
  • It might be helpful to most readers to add date ranges to terms like "Paleozoic"; i.e., Paleozoic (roughly 542 to 251 million years ago).
  • Wikilink Pangaean and rifting?
  • Springs and aquifers
  • "All of Florida's abundant fresh water is the result of precipitation that returns to the atmosphere in a process involving evaporation and transpiration of moisture from plants called evapotranspiration." - Rearrange slightly? Suggestion: "All of Florida's abundant fresh water is the result of precipitation that returns to the atmosphere in a process called evapotranspiration that involves evaporation and transpiration of moisture from plants."
  • "Acidic rainwater erodes the limestone... " - I believe this is the first mention of limestone. Probably some connection needs to be made here between limestone and the calcium carbonate deposition discussed in "Formation and hydrology". Does the confining layer consist mainly of limestone?
Finetooth (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, thanks for the review, Finetooth. I think I've made all the changes. I guess in every article I've brought to FAC there's some glaring error so odd, such as the conversion of 30 feet to km in the lead there, that I am in complete disbelief that I did it. Such was my disbelief when I read your comments that I had no idea what you were talking about until I read it, then thought, who put that in there??? Me, probably...
The confining layer of the Floridan Aquifer are four levels of karst formations divided by their permeability that are quite detailed in my sources, but I think too much detail for this article. They do not limit the confining layer to limestone, so lest Captain Geology swoop down on it and call me sloppy, I think I'll leave it for now. I am, however, open to discussion on it if it is a source of confusion.
I'm very glad you like the article and I look forward to more comments. --Moni3 (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the article very much. This is a most interesting river, and you have captured its essential self in elegant fashion. As to the "glaring error", I think I spotted it mainly because I've done the same thing myself several times. As to the limestone, I think that what is there now is fine; "Waves compressed sands, calcium carbonate, and shells into limestone" makes the connection that I missed before (or which appeared since I last looked). I'm striking my first set of comments above and changing my "comments" above to "support". Below is installment 2 of my comments; nothing in them prevents my support of this truly excellent article.

*Flow rates and water quality

  • "Farther upriver, the discharge rate ranges from 1,030 cubic feet (29 m3) near Lake Poinsett to 2,850 cubic feet (81 m3) near DeLand." - Add "per second" to both?
  • "Climate change again between 5,000 and 3,000 years ago prompted the Middle Archaic period, where scientists have attributed the first evidence of human habitation near the St. Johns River." - "Where" doesn't seem like the right word for a time span. Suggestion: "Further climate change between 5,000 and 3,000 years ago led to the Middle Archaic period; evidence suggests that human habitation near the St. Johns River first occurred during this period."
  • Colonial era
  • "The French and Spanish continued to spar over who would control the natural resources and native peoples of the colony, foreshadowing a history where eight different countries have controlled the river." - "during which" rather than "where"?
  • Land boom
  • "Most of the 20th century Florida experienced development to make up for the years it remained pristine." - "To make up for" is what a real-estate agent might say. Perhaps "that offset" would be better?
  • Restoration
  • "Although most of it is washed from the southern parts of the river, the Jacksonville area produces approximately 36 percent of the pollutants found in the lower basin." - Maybe "pollution" rather than "it" for clarity?
  • "The State of Florida implemented a program named Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM).... " - Could you add the date of the start-up?
Finetooth (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Changes made. I appreciate your scrutiny and suggestions. Thank you very much for the review. --Moni3 (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you can see, it died 2 days before you noticed it, after I nominated it. It's still available in HTML form. Does anybody know if NOAA keeps former articles hosted at their site? Do they move them to another, or shall I simply de-link it? --Moni3 (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ruhrfisch - I peer reviewed this and think it is essentially ready for FA, just have some comments first:

  • We discussed this in the PR, but I think that It is one of the few rivers in the United States to run north. in the lead is a bit of a stretch (there are more than a few rivers flowing north in the US). The article text says It flows north—which is unusual in North America—from its headwaters ... Could the lead just also say it is unusual?
  • Also in the lead there seems to be some redundancy here Numerous lakes are formed by the river or flow into it, but as a river its widest point is 3 miles (4.8 km) across, spanning several miles between Palatka and Jacksonville, the latter being the largest urban area on the river.
  • In Geography and ecology, could the use of flows/flowing in the same sentence be avoided (perhaps use runs for the first use?) It flows north—which is unusual in North America—from its headwaters flowing from the Lake Wales Ridge, which is only slightly elevated at 30 feet (9.1 m) above sea level.
  • Lake Geroge section, In 1955 an extremely rare Timucua totem representing an owl was found buried and preserved in the St. Johns muck off of Hontoon Island; no other totems in North America have been found outside of the Pacific Northwest.[33] but the next sentence says two more were found in 1978. Perhaps ... Hontoon Island; at the time no other totems in North America had been found outside of the Pacific Northwest.[33]*Land boom section, missing verb? Undeveloped land sold well and draining to reclaim wetlands has often gone unchecked, and [was?] instead encouraged by government.

That's it, very nicely done (as usual). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok. I'm uncomfortable with the discrepancies between what the sources say about the northern flowing rivers of the world and the St. Johns. I've written to Anthony Randazzo, who has been cited in The Geology of Florida, to ask him to quantify his point. I hope to get a reply somewhat soon. However, I am confident that two sources have stated that the St. Johns is rare in that it is a river in the northern hemisphere/North America to flow north. I don't think it is demonstrably false as characterized by an editor in this FAC, but rather not very well explained. Now I've asked Dr. Randazzo for some more detail on this statement to be able to explain it. Perhaps this means in comparison with 50 other rivers. Or 1,000. Maybe the way its headwaters flow, or the terrain it passes over. I don't know.
  • I don't think the sentence about Palatka and Jacksonville in the lead is redundant, but if you have a suggestion about how it should be reworded, I'm happy to change it. The river is wider from the east to the west banks. This spans from Palatka to Jacksonville, north to south. It's wide in miles, the length of several miles.
  • I think I've fixed the other issues. Let me know if you have more suggestions. Thanks for the review. --Moni3 (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have switched to support as the points left are minor. I struck three poitns and I know you will resolve the remaining issues. As the for the ones left, here are my thoughts:
  • I think of few as less than 10 or 20 at the most, and I can name more than 20 American rivers that flow north (the article itself mentions a tributary of the St. Johns that does too). Few can also mean a small proportion of the total number, so that might be true. In any case, I also think that the lead should reflect the text of the article and, as noted, the article says it is unusual (not one of the few). Let's see what the expert says.
  • I guess I do not understand this sentence: Numerous lakes are formed by the river or flow into it, but as a river its widest point is 3 miles (4.8 km) across, spanning several miles between Palatka and Jacksonville, the latter being the largest urban area on the river. It seems to say exactly how wide it is at its widest point (3 miles), then gives a vague ditance (several miles) and two cities that are about 40 miles apart. My guess is that it is 3 miles wide at several points bewteen Palatka and Jacksonville, or that there is a several mile long section of the river that is this wide, but I am just confused by this now.

Hope this helps clarify my comments, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comments: This is indeed a fine article. Although I'm hopeless with ecology, hydrology, etc., I found a great deal of it interesting; I must admit, however, that it took me a few days to get through all of that science mumbo jumbo. With my faults now upfront, I concentrated mainly on the latter history sections. For the most part I think it's a great overview, but I worry that some areas stray a little too far from the river itself, paying perhaps a little too much attention to minor and major players in Florida's history. Some whittling may be in order throughout to make sure that the focus stays on the St. Johns, rather than the state as a whole. A few specifics:
  • foreshadowing a history during which eight different countries have controlled the river. -- during which eight different countries WOULD CONTROL the river?
  • The Timucua, as other groups of indigenous people in Florida, began to lose cohesion and numbers by the 18th century. This paragraph loses sight of the river. Yes, the Timucua are important in regards to the river pre-colonization, but this paragraph veers into "History of Florida" rather than "History of the St. Johns", if that makes sense.
  • Zephaniah Kingsley, Anna, and their plantation is fascinating, but is it necessary to dedicate such a meaty paragraph to them in this article? The St. Jones is only mentioned peripherally (their plantation was "close to the west bank" of the river), and Kingsley wasn't the only one to settle nearby.
  • In 1864, near Palatka, Confederate forces captured and then burned the USS Columbine and sank her, making it perhaps the only ship commandeered by the Confederacy. -- The use of "perhaps" here is somewhat confusing; was it or wasn't it? Columbine's article states it was "one of the few instances in which a Union warship was destroyed by land-based forces during the Civil War in Florida", but maybe your source is less clear? Either way, this can be worded better.
  • Although the Spanish had colonized Florida for two centuries, they did not focus on developing much of it. Florida remained the last part of the east coast of the United States to be developed and explored. -- Perhaps consider combining these two: "Although the Spanish had colonized Florida for two centuries, the state remained..."?

Hope this helps, and that I'm making myself clear; I don't think there need to be any drastic changes, but perhaps a little culling will help refocus this massive section. I know that the history of Florida is so very closely associated to that of the St. Johns, and vice versa, but there is an awful lot of info to take in here. Let me know what you think, and even if just the above is addressed, I'll be happy to add my support. María (habla conmigo) 18:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple changes. When suggested to cut material, I find it best for me to wait a few hours and think about it. The Seminoles are mentioned later in the article, so cutting all information about the demise of the Timucua won't do. I can drop some to a note. I can make other references to the river. Let me think on it and consult my psychic...uh...sources...
On the Columbine, my sources aren't really clear on this either. They say perhaps.
There are other planters I can name in the Kingsley paragraph. He's just the notable one for the historic site. --Moni3 (talk) 18:44, 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 promoted by Karanacs 18:51, 3 November 2009 [18].

Pennsylvania State Capitol

Nominator(s): ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 22:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel its up to the FAC criteria. It loosely follows the model of the two other FA state capitol, Michigan and Oregon. It was peer reviewed by Ruhrfisch, Finetooth and Ctjf83. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 22:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments (Ruhrfisch) As noted I peer reviewed this and think it is very close to FA. Here are some nitpicky comments / questions.

  • Should the word "located" be in the first sentence (is it really needed, or could it be omitted) The Pennsylvania State Capitol is the seat of government for the U.S. state of Pennsylvania and is located in downtown Harrisburg.
  • Would "in" read better here than "using"? The current capitol was designed in 1902, using [in?] a Beaux-Arts style with Renaissance themes throughout.
  • This seems a bit awkward After its completion, the capitol was the site of a graft scandal when it was discovered that the construction and subsequent furnishing cost three times more than the General Assembly had appropriated. Would something like After its completion, the capitol became the subject of a graft scandal when it was discovered that the construction ... read better?
  • Would this read better as something like [In 1799] Eventually the legislature voted to move the capital, in 1799, to Lancaster instead of Harrisburg, because of Lancaster's greater population.[2][6]
  • Would it make sense to mention that Cobb was a Chicagoan either here After building designs were submitted by various architects in another competition, Henry Ives Cobb was chosen in 1897 to design the new capitol. or perhaps in The Capitol Building Commission then held another design competition, for Pennsylvania architects only, which prevented Cobb from submitting a design or finishing his capitol.[22]
  • Does this need a ref? Ownership of the capitol was handed over to the state government on August 15, 1906, and the Capitol Building Commission was dissolved.
  • Would it make sense to add the years to the captions The Hills Capitol and The Cobb Capitol?
  • Could the direction be added here (my guess is it was to the east): From 1912 to 1917, the state acquired all of the 541 separate properties that made up the Eighth Ward, which was situated between the capitol and a set of railroad tracks [to the west?], then owned by the Pennsylvania Railroad.[36]
  • The NHL form seems to imply that the People's Court was a courtyard (not a court of law, which was my original thought) and that the East Wing is on the site of the parking lot that was where it was to have been built. Assuming my understanding is correct, should these points be added to the article?
  • I am confused - the railroad tracks and State Street Bridge are on the east side of the capitol, the Susquehanna River is on the west side, but the article says two things that seem to contradict each other Brunner also planned a bridge to cross the railroad tracks and connect the capitol with the highest point in the city at 13th Street.[40] After his death, parts of the bridge were redesigned and became the current State Street Bridge, which was completed in 1930. The bridge was originally planned to span the Susquehanna River.
  • This sentence is in the Interior section, but most of it is about the exterior (and I added the width): The capitol is 520 feet (160 m) long, 254 feet (77 m) wide,[54] 272 feet (83 m) tall and contains 475 rooms.[55] Would it make more sense in the Exterior section? If so the number of rooms could be added to the current following sentence (It has [475 rooms and] four floors, not including a mezzanine between the first and second floors.
  • Also the ref that has the width also gives the acreage covered by the building (2 acres) - is this worth adding?
  • OK, I note that 2 acres seems to be the "footprint", not the total floor area of the capitol. If you multiply the length times the width (if the capitol were a rectangle shape), then the footprint would be just over 3 acres, so 2 acres makes sense. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would this be better The staircase is an imperial staircase and is similar to the one in the Palais Garnier in Paris, France.[23]
  • Would it make sense to list the 28 famous Pennsylvanians in a footnote (they are in some of the refs used already) (I would be willing to help with this)?
  • Would it make sense to use a more parallel construction here It is located on the opposite side of the rotunda as the House. so more like It is located on the north side of the rotunda, opposite the House.
  • Since the Pennsylvania Manual is online, should that be linked in the sources (currently just the wikilink to the PA Manual is there)?
  • I do not understand this sentence, specifically how buildings outside Harrisburg are part of the Capitol Complex, and the ref does not back this up that I can see: The Pennsylvania State Capitol Complex collectively includes most the buildings owned by Commonwealth and controlled by the Pennsylvania Department of General Services, except for state office buildings in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Scranton, and Reading.[65] (something similar is in the lead). The ref for this is Page I-9 of the PA Manual, but when I cheked this is just a map of the Capitol Complex in Harrisburg. I searched the whole PA Manual for "Capitol Complex" and found only this on page 4-61 that mentioned the other buildings" "DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT Bureau of Facilities Management – Responsible for minor maintenance projects; housekeeping operations in the Capitol Complex; the Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Reading, and Scranton State Office buildings; and the Executive residences." This says the buildings outide Harrisburg are under the same bureau, but not that they are part of the Capitol Complex (as I read it).
  • I made some copyedits and added a few minor points, please revert if I made things worse or introduced errors.

Nicely done, and hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Finetooth) Leaning toward support. I peer-reviewed the article, and the concerns I raised then have been addressed, but I have a few additional quibbles.

Lead
  • "Before the capital was moved to Harrisburg in 1810, the seat of government for the state was in Philadelphia and, then, in Lancaster starting in 1799." - Would it be more clear to say, "The seat of government for the state was originally in Philadelphia, then moved to Lancaster in 1799 and finally to Harrisburg in 1810"? (Also, please see note below about 1812 vs. 1810).
History
  • Would it be helpful in the History section to add the locations of the other two seats of government relative to Philadelphia? Maybe "offered to donate land near the banks of the Susquehanna River in central Pennsylvania" and "legislature voted to move the capital to Lancaster, X miles west of Philadelphia, instead of Harrisburg... "? I didn't look up X, but it should be easy to find.
OK.
Hills Capitol
  • "The Hills Capitol was visited a number of times by famous people... " - Delete "a number of times"?
  • The Hills Capitol section says that the seat of government moved to Harrisburg in 1812, but the lead says 1810. It appears that the government decided to move the seat in 1810 but didn't do it until 1812. Should the date in the lead be 1812?

Restoration and preservation

  • "The statue was placed back onto the dome by Skycrane in September of the same year... ". - "was returned to" rather than "was placed back onto"?
Grounds
  • "The remaining 29 acres (12 ha) were added when the state bought the Eighth Ward, a neighborhood that was located behind the capitol." - Delete "a neighborhood that was located behind the capitol" since that's clear from the "Brunner plan" section?
Interior
  • "The rotunda is paved with tiles from the Moravian Pottery and Tile Works that were hand-crafted by Henry Chapman Mercer." - Since Mercer made the tiles rather than the Tile Works, I might re-cast this as "The rotunda is paved with tiles, hand-crafted by Henry Chapman Mercer, from the Moravian Pottery and Tile Works."
Capitol Complex
  • "The oldest building in the complex is the Executive, Library and Museum Building, situated adjacent to the Hills Capitol and the Huston Capitol, was constructed in 1894." - This sentence is tangled by the two competing main verbs. Suggestion: "The oldest building in the complex is the Executive, Library and Museum Building. Situated next to the Hills Capitol and the Huston Capitol, it was built in 1894."
Finetooth (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding so promptly. Everything looks fine, and I'm pleased to support promotion. Finetooth (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3

Hopefully these issues will be easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All image issues have been resolved - I'm striking my oppose. Awadewit (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support meets FA criteria. Dincher (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Content is impressive to me, but there are still a few prose issues that need to be taken care of before a promotion. I won't guarantee that I found every possible improvement during the full reading I did, but there's plenty that I did find:

  • Hills Capitol: "Pennsylvania's collection of Civil War battle flags ... were moved...". If part of this sentence is dropped, it reveals a flaw in tenses. The last part should be changed to "was moved".
  • to the Executive Libary and Museum Building." Typo in here to cleanse.
  • Cobb Capitol: Try to cut down on the repetitive use of "new capitol" here: "to design the new capital. Construction on the new capitol began on May 2, 1898. The legislature met in the new capitol on January 3, 1899". The easiest way I see is to change the second usage to a simple "Construction began", though it may lead to a short sentence.
  • Huston Capitol: "Governor William A. Stone appointed a new Capital Building Commission in 1901. The Capital Building Commission ...". This is another case of close repetition. Here, the second use could be changed to just "The commission" without losing any meaning, making the prose a little tighter.
  • "out of only a total of nine entries in the competition". Move "only" to have it before "nine", the word it is intended to modify.
  • "The collection of Civil War flags were removed...". Again, "were" should be "was" since the collection is singular.
  • "after a parade and a ceromony". Another typo at the end?
  • Brunner plan: ""The Education Building or Forum Building was completed in 1931." Is this entire name the official name of the building? If not, and it was called either of the two, "or Forum Building" would be better off in between commas.
  • The Pennsylvania State Capitol Building web page (from Ellis) is a dead link. I tried to read it in search of an answer to my previous question, and couldn't access it. The link checker confirmed that it is dead.
  • Grounds: "The monument was not placed on to the grounds until 1868...". Make "on to" one word? If so, there was another one earlier in the article, although I don't remember exactly where.
  • "when the Executive, Library and Musuem Building was built." Other uses before didn't have the comma, but the ones in this section do. Try to make it one or the other.
  • Interior: Two mezzanine links is probably one too many.
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 18:51, 3 November 2009 [19].

The Beatles

Nominator(s): PL290 (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FFA, has been on main page


The article has been extensively reworked to address all the issues raised at the last FAC. In my judgement it now meets the criteria. PL290 (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator's review feedback. This party's not over yet, although with currently 3 "Supports" there's reason to be optimistic. But what I really I want to say concerns not the outcome but the process. If I don't say this now, I don't know when I will. This is only the second article I've taken to FAC but this has been, and continues to be, a fantastic collaborative experience and a vivid demonstration of how review transcends mere assessment and is the vehicle for improvement. I think every single person involved in this FAC, whether or not currently supporting, should feel very proud of what it has achieved in taking this article to a higher level. PL290 (talk) 11:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it is shorter but I fear that I have prompted you to lose mention of Epstein and Martin. I think the first paragraph is good as it is with a minor grammar query, should it be a 'group that' rather than a 'group who' in the first line? To expand on my initial comment, the lead did not entice me into the article. I could try a suggested lead in one of my sandboxes for you to look at (will have more time in a day or two) although I'm sure regular editors to this article might already be on the case. I'm not a Beatles expert at all but I have a reasonable idea of what should be in a lead section, the offer is there anyway. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion your comment was timely as the Lead had indeed grown far too long. This has been taken up on the article talk page and as a result a further reduction's been made since the diff I provided above. Re. the Epsteins and Martins of this world, typical band articles don't mention managers and producers in the Lead. Re. your grammar query, as the article uses British English, "group who" is correct. Thanks for your input and I hope you find the (latest) Lead satisfactory. PL290 (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe so, but there is a sub-header 'Contribution of George Martin'. If he has a section in the article then surely he should be mentioned in the lead (as a summary of the article content)? I think that he was quite an important figure in the Beatles career. Not being awkward, just seems rather obvious to me. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added a paragraph break. For me, the middle paragraph flowed a bit awkwardly, going from the members' current status, back to a discussion of Sgt Pepper, then leaping forward to 2009's Rock Band game. I split up that paragraph to separate discussion of the band's history from the critical assessment of Sgt Pepper and the band's continuing popularity. --Nick RTalk 14:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - no major problems, but still not quite ready yet! As I mentioned on the talk page recently, in my opinion the "Musical evolution" and "Genres" sections (particularly the former) should feature shorter quotations from a wider range of sources, rather than relying on the lengthy quotation of only a few people's opinions. I also still think that the George Martin section could do with a quote from Martin himself summing up his overall contributions, and also one from a band member giving their opinion of him. --Nick RTalk 17:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry no one acted on your suggestion on the talk page - I agree all these points would add value to the article and I've now balanced out those quotes:
[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] Better? PL290 (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and [25] [26] (I've subsequently reformatted the paras and removed blockquote for the shorter quotes, but you can see what's been added from the above diffs.) Thanks for bringing up this suggestion again; it has improved the article. As the objections you raised have been met, I hope you'll now consider changing your response to one of support. PL290 (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments What makes this reliable?

Current refs:

  • Remove italics on the publishers in refs 2, 114, 155, 169, 170, 173, 178, 236, 238, 239
  • Unabbreviate the publishers in ref 3, 4, 5, 151, 169, 170
  • Done (except 169 & 170 which don't seem abbreviated to me! Perhaps already fixed?)
  • Refs 6, 97 need a publisher.
  • Publishers in refs 8, 126, 127, 139, 144, 153, 199 need to be "allmusic.com".
  • Remove notable work's location in refs 50, 92, 101, 102, 114, 158, 170, 172, 173, 174, 176, 179, 229, 240
  • Hmm, I doubt it's that imperative or that confusing for readers. Because it messes with the uniformity of the refs, with some with and some without locations. But if you've set you heart on it, then follow the template. RB88 (T) 00:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 90, 91 are the same and need to be merged.
  • Ref 93 is dead. It's got the old "allmusicguide" address. Find it in the new website.
  • Remove the book's publishing location in ref 161 for uniformity with the rest.
  • Refs 179, 236, 237 are missing a retrieve date.
  • Refs 208, 209 need a page citation.
  • Publisher in ref 237 is simply Mojo.
  • Remove "web only" in ref 240.

RB88 (T) 20:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The lead shouldn't contain any information that's not discussed in the main article, yet the fourth paragraph mentions their record sales and their position in polls and I can't see anywhere where this reappears. I guess the former should be discussed in the Discography section (as that is where a link to List of The Beatles' record sales is provided) and the latter in the Legacy section.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on criterion 3
  • File:Indra-Club-Hamburg.png - Is it not clear that the uploader and the photographer are the same person, thus it is not clear that uploader had the right to release the photo. Can you establish that the uploader and the photographer are the same?
  • I see your point. As the uploader is no longer a registered user and the other user last contributed over a year ago, verification is unlikely and I have replaced the image with another one in the article. PL290 (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Iwanttoholdyourhandsample.ogg - The purpose of use for this clip needs to be strengthened. Currently, it does not explain why the listener needs to hear the song - "Describing the song is important to the article The Beatles because the sudden huge popularity of this song in the U.S. in late 1963 was a key moment in the group's success story, as detailed in the article." - Why does the listeneer need to hear this particular 14-sec clip?
  • I've updated the rationale along the lines suggested. As this is a band article not a song article, there's less emphasis on specific sections of a song or details within a song, and more emphasis on the contrast between songs at different career stages. I'll update the remainder of the rationales along the same lines. PL290 (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:3 Savile Row.jpg - Please fill out the image description tag at the image description page with the correct information.
  • File:I want you.ogg - This purpose of use must be strengthened - it gives no reason why the listener must hear the clip to understand the point being made - "Describing the song is important to the article The Beatles because of its historical significance as the last recording made by all four Beatles in the same recording studio, when relationships had broken down and the band breakup was imminent, as detailed in the article."
  • There are a lot of fair use clips in this article. Most of them use the justification that they are describing a particular genre of the Beatles. I think that these rationales could be much stronger. Please see File:CharlesKnow1.ogg and File:CharlesKnow2.ogg, for example. Considering we are talking about the Beatles, surely we can explain the reasoning in much more detailed terms. It should be easy to write extremely strong fair use rationales for these clips. In my opinion, all of the fair use rationales that say "this is an example of X style" are rather weak. How can we justify having so many? I would guess, however, that since these songs are so famous and had such an impact, we can strengthen the fair use rationales and justify the inclusion of so many clips.

I look forward to striking this oppose as soon as these issues are resolved. Awadewit (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not feel that the single sentence added to all of the clips adds much to the fair use rationales. Please look at the above examples and compare the specificity:
Strawberry Fields: "A key theme of the article is the way the band's music matured continuously throughout their career. Words alone are inadequate to describe the contrast in musical style and maturity between songs recorded at different points in their career, and presenting the sound of this psychedelic rock song is necessary for a complete understanding." - This does not explain why this particular song is necessary or this particular clip. Again, the Beatles are a very famous band and their music has been analyzed by professional scholars. Surely, there are details you can add to this fair use rationale that would explain why Strawberry Fields is crucial to understanding the psychedelic rock style of the Beatles.
What'd I Say: "The sample illustrates a defining element of the song "What'd I Say": the opening riff on Wurlitzer electric piano improvised by Ray Charles. The left-hand riff has been used in other music following this song "countless times" according to allmusic editor Bill Dahl [1], and cited by John Lennon of The Beatles as the reason pop music and rock and roll began to lean heavily toward songs that opened with distinctive guitar riffs.(Evans, Mike (2007). Ray Charles: The Birth of Soul, Omnibus Press. ISBN 1846093418 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum, p. 112) Because of its influence in popular music to follow, words are inadequate in describing it and presenting the sound is necessary for a complete understanding." - Notice the difference - this purpose of use explains why the specific clip and the song are important to hear.
It takes some work to write strong fair use rationales. Awadewit (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, it does take work, but it's worth it to get things right—and it's high time this article regained its featured status. To that end it's already received a lot of work and will continue to do so for any remaining aspects that need fixing such as this. Thanks for your very thorough attention to the fair use rationales. I'm enjoying rising to the challenge of getting them into really good shape. I spent some time on them yesterday evening, then uploaded them this morning after another check, and have made minor tweaks since. I hope you'll agree they now justify the article's inclusion of the clips. On a side note, those two examples you provided are a hard act to follow, being specifically geared to the unusual case of justifying two clips from the same song, and hence having great emphasis on why that exact part of the song is important. But I've tried to follow the general principles you've pointed out, and I feel I've achieved what's needed. What do you think?
PL290 (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are a phenomenal improvement! Thanks so much for your hard work on these - now I can use these as samples of excellent fair use rationales! I'm striking my oppose. Awadewit (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some alt text to a couple of (new?) pictures, though they are not nearly as detailed as the alt text on the other pictures. I also adjusted one of the reference link, based on the fact that the original link was a redirect. (I determined these things needed fixing by the tools link to in the box at the top of this page.) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support — This is a vast improvement on the version I reviewed last month. The >500 edits made since then were well worth the effort. The prose is engaging and flows beautifully with no hint of proseline. I got myself into a bit of a tiz after spotting a possible minor error wrt to punctuation and have spent 30 minutes checking the quotation marks. I think they are all compliant with the Manual of Style. Although my support is based mainly on the quality of the prose, I feel qualified to comment on the comprehensiveness—as are many people of my generation—and I am impressed. This was always going to be a difficult FAC to get right, but I think you have succeeded. Well done. Graham Colm Talk 18:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'm doing a top-to-bottom copyedit. Clearly, a lot of hard work has gone into the article, but more remains to be done. Here are a few things that have come up so far:

  • Beatlemania is raised at the end of the "Formation and early years (1957–1962)" subsection. Is there really evidence for Beatlemania in 1962? I can ascertain that the band's first big hit, "Please Please Me", was not released until the following January and that the word Beatlemania was not coined until later in 1963. Can you source "frenzied adulation of the group [taking] hold" in 1962? If not, the discussion of Beatlemania needs to be moved to the following subsection. It would fit in naturally at the end there, as a description of the "riotous enthusiasm" and unruly crowds, which are well sourced.
  • The following sentence is both a run-on and confusing: "Comprising a similar mix of new recordings and singles tracks, but seeing significantly greater use of studio production techniques than its 'live' predecessor, With The Beatles, recorded in stages from July to November 1963, is described by the same reviewer as 'a sequel of the highest order—one that betters the original by developing its own tone and adding depth.'" It needs to be recast either into two sentences or with a well-placed semicolon. You also need to recast so the reader knows to what "same reviewer" you are referring. No reviewer has been named before this passage. The word reviewer has not appeared before this passage. The last person quoted before this passage is John Lennon. Please rewrite here and/or in the preceding paragraph to make clear that you are referring to Stephen Thomas Erlewine of Allmusic or, at least, "an Allmusic reviewer" (preceding paragraph)/"the same Allmusic reviewer" (here).
  • Is it really accurate to assert that Tommy Roe and Chris Montez had achieved "great" popularity in the UK? Montez, for instance, appears to have had precisely one hit UK single at this point in his career. Unless your source unquestionably supports the assertion of great popularity, I would rephrase the sentence thus: "Although not billed as tour leaders, they overshadowed other acts including Tommy Roe, Chris Montez and Roy Orbison, US artists popular in the UK". This also has the virtue of being more concise.—DocKino (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I believe it is accurate: both artists had in recent months achieved significant chart success in the UK: "Let's Dance" by Montez, released in October 1962, had reached #2 in the UK, and Roe's "Sheila", released in September 1962, had reached #3. In my book that is a measure of "great popularity" and merits the emphasis I've given it. However, if you still disagree I'll be happy to reword it along the lines suggested. PL290 (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of the lead section needs a little rewrite. While it is very sad that Stu Sutcliffe died in 1962, it is not directly relevant to the history of the band. What is directly relevant is that he quit the group the previous year.
  • In working on the passage concerning 1961--which called for some relatively intensive editing--I discovered multiple instances where the year of publication given in the citation did not match that in the list of references. I corrected those, but a quick glance shows other such errors: notes 11 and 16, for instance, give years that do not match those in the references. You're going to need to go through the whole article and eliminate these errors. DocKino (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following passage presents a few problems: "The last two Hamburg stints, in November and December 1962, involved another 90 hours of performing. All told, they appeared on 270 nights in just over a year and a half, playing live an estimated 1,200 times." (1) It's certainly worth mentioning that they had two last stints in Hamburg in November and December, but why are we specifying the hours they played there? They were also playing constantly in Liverpool throughout the latter part of 1962, and those hours aren't tabulated. Please rewrite. (2) Please check the source: What is the significance of this "year and a half"? Why calculate how many times they played live through December 1962 starting in mid-1961, rather than starting with their live debut or their first Hamburg gig? Please clarify or cut. (3) Please check the source: They "appeared on 270 nights...playing live an estimated 1,200 times"? Really? If this is correct in any sense, that would mean they averaged more than four gigs or sets each night they played out during this period, and that point would have to be clarified. But something just seems wrong here. DocKino (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done: [32]. (Not a source I have, and it's not viewable on Google Books, but I agree the passage is problematic and I've taken out the stats as they are not essential and don't relate to anything else in the article.) PL290 (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skipping ahead for the moment to the "Song catalogue" subsection, the end of the second paragraph notes that "Harrison and Starr allowed their songwriting contracts with Northern Songs to lapse in 1968". But it has not been established anywhere above that Harrison and Starr had contracts with Northern Songs in the first place. Please rewrite the earlier part of the subsection as appropriate to make this clear. DocKino (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A couple small things. First this sentence, "There was uproar in June 1966 when shocking cover art adorned Yesterday and Today, Capitol's US compilation of singles and tracks from the UK versions of Help!, Rubber Soul and the upcoming Revolver (1966)." starts with a dangerous word (There...) so might be rewritten or not. Can "as many as three of his compositions earned" be shortened to "three of his compositions earned"? Also the text makes me want to hear It's All Too Much. Any chance for a sample? Thanks for a well-written article (Wikipedia's number two in 2008 and 2009 I read). -SusanLesch (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This passage poses an amusing problem, the apparent result of linking related material derived from two different sources: "With The Beatles caught the attention of Times music critic William Mann, who went as far as to suggest that Lennon and McCartney were 'the outstanding English composers of 1963'. Starting with 'Till There Was You', and continuing with tracks from the albums that followed, the newspaper published a series of Mann's articles giving his detailed analysis of The Beatles' music, lending it respectability". Did you catch the problem? "Till There Was You" was not composed by Lennon and McCartney. Please recast to eliminate the false implication.
  • The article says not a single word about "She Loves You". Given that it was the best-selling single in Britain by any artist ever to that point and remains the best-selling Beatles single in Britain ever, this is an omission that should be corrected. DocKino (talk) 05:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following claim in the lead section is not properly supported by the primary text: "Moulded into a professional outfit by music store owner Brian Epstein after he offered to act as the group's manager..." The closest the primary text comes is way down in the "Magical Mystery Tour, Yellow Submarine and White Album" section: "Creative inspiration for The Beatles...came from an unexpected quarter when, having relied on Epstein's guiding presence since the start of their success..." That suggests his significance, to be sure, but is still a far cry from crediting him with having "moulded [the band] into a professional outfit". So, either (a) the lead can be edited along these lines: "Guided by music store owner Brian Epstein after he offered to act as the group's manager..." or (b) sourced material can be added to the primary text to support the assertion that he moulded The Beatles into a professional outfit. DocKino (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article currently states that "Fifteen-year-old Paul McCartney joined as a guitarist" and identifies the period when he switched to bass. I heard somewhere that he did a little singing, too--even some lead vocalist stuff. When did that start to happen? The article needs to give the reader some sort of clue. I added the description of Lennon as a "singer" to the beginning of the primary narrative. Consider adding a brief description of Harrison's and Starr's general vocal duties somewhere as well, unless that's already made clear later in the article. DocKino (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Somewhere could this article explain and name the albums released in the United States? I added one after With The Beatles but there are Introducing... The Beatles and Meet The Beatles!. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding Meet The Beatles in a way that suggests it's essentially equivalent to With the Beatles opens up the proverbial worm can. The U.S. album had a significantly different track listing; indeed, our article currently focuses on the importance of excluding "I Want To Hold Your Hand" from With The Beatles. But that song is included on Meet The Beatles--it's thus especially misleading in this context to imply an equivalence.
And then would we parenthetically name Introducing...The Beatles after Please Please Me, though the U.S. album came out ten months later and again had several different track listings? I think that, too, would be a mistake.
That said, I agree that a discussion of how the early Beatles albums appeared in quite different versions in the U.S. should be brought into the "British Invasion" subsection, which covers 1964, when Beatles albums were first issued in America. Currently, we don't learn that "Capitol Records...had taken to issuing US-specific...albums compiled from a selection of the band's material" until the subsection covering 1966, which is too late. We need to learn at least a little in 1964 about retitled albums, altered track listings, and the creation of compilations (such as The Beatles' Second Album, released April 1964) with no British parallel. DocKino (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: the history should focus on the band's studio output, not Capitol's compilations, although it's important that there's awareness of the latter and they can be viewed. I'm about to add a general note with a link to The Beatles Discography to the start of the History section; may or may not be appropriate/sufficient; will go on looking at whether to add some text around 1964 too. PL290 (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added a mention at the point where Capitol's initial delay in releasing any material is discussed. This and the aforementioned note are shown in this diff: [40]. PL290 (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's nice. But the article doesn't mention Meet The Beatles! which was 5x platinum. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you liked that change. It's true that the article doesn't currently mention Meet The Beatles!; per DocKino's reasoning above I think that is correct and it would confuse the article to try and cover the US releases too. The article does however show the number of US Diamond, multi-Platinum, Platinum and Gold awards (in the Lead and again later), reflecting the band's commercial success in the States achieved by means of those Capitol-created albums. I feel the US and other international albums themselves are best kept to the discography article. PL290 (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence to "The British Invasion" that I hope will go at least partway toward addressing Susan's concerns: [41] (what looks like a major change at the top of the edit is actually the by-product of deleting a null return in the coding; just scroll down a bit.) DocKino (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment I've pinged a couple of musical editors so we can give this a lookover and see what it needs to get over the line. I will go through and make any straightforward changes (revert if I inadvertently change the meaning or otherwise goof up). I will noteD queries below - apart from these minor quibbles it actually looks pretty good I have to say. Nothing is jumping out at me as needing fixing. Those below are not really deal-breakers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Beatles achieved a UK mainstream hit - achieved a hit sounds funny to me, got a hit or had a hit, or achieved mainstream success, but this combo sounds odd.
the band increasingly experienced boredom.. - why not just " the band became increasingly bored" ?
In the 2000s section, the death of harrison just sits there and halts the flow a bit. Not sure how to address that one.
Both tweaks have now been made along the lines suggested. I felt the same way about the Harrison sentence; thinking further about it, I realized it should mention the Concert for George tribute concert where McCartney and Starr were among the musicians. I've now added this material. [42] PL290 (talk) 08:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good work :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Remember that this (lengthy) article is about The Beatles, not about Beatles band members, who have their own (lengthy) articles. Therefore, I don't see why Lennon's death needs to be in the lead, or why Harrison's knife attack needs to be mentioned at all. Particularly since these happened long after The Beatles broke-up, and had no real bearing on their music. —indopug (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with the principle, although those two examples should possibly stay; my current thinking is along the following lines but I'm open to others' further thoughts. There are plenty of "obvious" things that are already excluded for just this reason, such as a simple mention of Plastic Ono Band, Wings, Wilburys, All-Starr Band..., lifestyle, relationships, peace/rights activism, new musical ventures/involvements, awards, extent of commercial success...). While continuing to exclude all that for precisely the reason you give, I feel it's useful to have the brief statement in the Lead saying at least something about what they did post-Beatles (suggested early in this FAC), which gives rise to a mention of the death of the two members as the explanation of why only the other two remain active. Turning to Harrison's knife attack, it was certainly a major event and may belong as a subset of what I said in my last sentence. All other mentions are cases that involve more than one ex-Beatle, which I think makes them relevant to the article. Perhaps all of the foregoing justifies keeping the existing post-Beatles mentions? I'll await your further thoughts. PL290 (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're right on, PL. Lennon's death must be mentioned in the lead, just as the attack on Harrison deserves mention in the primary text. Were they attacked simply because of their impressive but less-than-earthshattering solo careers? Of course not. They were Beatles, and we know damn well these important, and in one case tragic, incidents relate to that. DocKino (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is there's a lot to talk about in a Beatles article. In the greater scheme of things, these are tangential items. I see no reason at all to mention Harrison's knife attack. Save that for the George Harrison article. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drive By comment - Why does Notes have full books ISBNs? As refs already covers this. Aaroncrick (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick answer: the "References" section only contains works cited multiple times. It's the one-off citations (of works not listed in "References") that have ISBNs. PL290 (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References

Multiple uses of a reference that should be named:

  • {{cite web}}
  • Gould (2008) p. 187.
  • Spitz (2005), p. 556.

Defined references using the same name:

  • albumsales
  • Spitzp556

---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In copyediting, I trimmed this passage, "The Beatles received their first major negative UK press in early 1968 when there were disparaging reviews of the Magical Mystery Tour film". The general terms ("major negative press"/"disparaging reviews") were largely redundant. It now reads, "The December 26 airing of the Magical Mystery Tour film brought The Beatles their first major negative UK press." However, it certainly would be helpful if you could track down a quote from the time that exemplifies the negative press the film received (which might serve as well to briefly describe the film). Doable? DocKino (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the top of the "Abbey Road, Let It Be and breakup" section, I find this phrase a bit confusing: "Unable to produce any real commitment to attending studio sessions...". The Get Back concept called for a live performance of unrecorded material, so why would a lack of commitment to studio sessions be particularly relevant?
  • "McCartney was deeply dissatisfied with Spector's addition of fifty musicians to 'The Long and Winding Road', and attempted to halt the release of Spector's version, but was unable to do so. He gave this as one of the three reasons he left the group." We need to know what the other two were. DocKino (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarified: [49] - in another source the same author lists all three reasons, showing that it was Klein's overall involvement, not just his ignoring McCartney's attempt to halt Spector's release, that was "one of the three reasons". I've now removed that sentence as the three reasons don't really add anything to the article let alone that part about "Let It Be". For what it's worth they are: (1) The Beatles had long since ceased to perform together as a group, so the whole purpose of the partnership had gone, (2) In 1969, Mr McCartney's partners, in the teeth of his opposition and in breach of the partnership deal, had appointed Mr Klein's company ABKCO Industries Limited as the partnership's exclusive business manager, and (3) Mr McCartney had never been given audited accounts in the four years since the partnership was formed. (Source: Harry (2002) p. 57.) PL290 (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The established format of the article is that latter-day opinions of albums come from Allmusic and Rolling Stone. I have mixed feelings about that--I know Pitchfork has recently reviewed all the Beatles albums, Are they not at least as reputable as Allmusic?--but at least it's consistent. Suddenly, when we get to Abbey Road, we get the opinion of one Ian MacDonald. Why? Why him in particular? Why here in particular? This doesn't quite work. DocKino (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's an interesting question. One possibility would be for the article to include a greater number of citations from a broader range of critical reviewers. Certainly Pitchfork are among the many recognized as acceptable by WikiProject Albums. However, my feeling is that the individual album articles are really the place for any in-depth analysis, and the current pattern serves to give a flavour of each album on the journey through the band's history in what is already quite a long article. The MacDonald cite you cite was added by another editor to help with an effort to reduce a reliance the article then had on quotes from Jonathan Gould, among other things, but that's no longer a problem. I'm not against that quote myself, and it does set off Allmusic's opinion a bit, but I see what you mean about the possible attraction of removing it so as to adhere to what's become an established pattern in the rest of the article. I'm inclined to keep things as they are for a couple of days to allow others a chance to join the conversation, and then just remove that quote if no one objects. PL290 (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ian MacDonald is the author of probably the most critically acclaimed analysis of the Beatles' music, Revolution in the Head. I for one would certainly be opposed to any removal of his work; if anything, more should be added.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • To help fuel the discussion, I've now provisionally added another explicit MacDonald quote at an earlier point, which I feel produces a better balance. It comes in 1965 where Rubber Soul is discussed as a significant advance in the band's music. This seems quite appropriate to me but I'm interested in further thoughts others may have. PL290 (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have a read of this obituary for a good description of why Revolution in the Head is thought of so highly (not that everyone agrees). I added the quotes from MacDonald in the musical style section because his comments on the Lennon-McCartney partnership go quite well alongside those of Everett, and I added his negative Abbey Road comments in an attempt to add some sources other than Allmusic. But I'm a bit concerned about the length of the album review quotations on the page in general - if you're reading through the article from top to bottom, they can bog things down, so I think some of them should be condensed, leaving the more complete quotes to the individual album pages. It's hard to use specific review quotes to give a flavour of an album's reception - whichever source you use, you're bound to annoy someone - so more and more end up being added to cover more points of view, and the article gets longer and longer...
      Having said that, I too had been thinking of adding some quotes from Pitchfork's recent album reviews. In particular, I think their White Album review has some good phrases summarising the album's sprawling nature and the increasing fragmentation of the band, which I think are better than their Allmusic equivalents. Potential quotes in bold:

      The phrase, "It's like their White Album"-- applied to records like Prince's Sign o' the Times, Hüsker Dü's Zen Arcade, the Clash's Sandinista!, and Pavement's Wowee Zowee, among many others-- has long been accepted critical shorthand. To use the expression is to conjure a familiar cluster of associations: The work in question is large and sprawling, overflowing with ideas but also with indulgences, and filled with a hugely variable array of material, some of which might sound great one day and silly the next. A band's White Album is also most likely assembled under a time of great stress, often resulting in an artistic peak but one that nonetheless scatters clues to its creator's eventual demise.
      The Beatles, the band's complex and wide-ranging double album from 1968, is all of these things. It's a glorious and flawed mess, and its failings are as essential to its character as its triumphs. People love this album not because every song is a masterpiece, but because even the throwaways have their place. Even so, for the Beatles, being all over the place was a sign of trouble. The disintegration of the group as one "thing" is reflected in every aspect of the record, from its recording history (John Lennon, Paul McCartney, and George Harrison sometimes worked in separate studios on their own songs) to its production (generally spare and tending to shapeshift from one song to the next) to the arrangements of the songs (which tend to emphasize the solo voice above all).

      --Nick RTalk 14:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've now trimmed the Allmusic Abbey Road cite and added Pitchfork cites for Revolver and the White Album. This diff [50] shows these changes along with the other album review changes so far today. Thanks for the suggested cites. Personally I think what we've ended up with is a definite improvement (particularly since you moved my White Album cite to the right album... doh!) and hasn't (yet) threatened to overwhelm the article. What do you think? PL290 (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead section; "The Beatles achieved UK mainstream success in late 1962 with the single 'Love Me Do'. Gaining worldwide popularity over the course of the next year..." I don't see any support in the primary text for the claim that they gained "worldwide popularity" over the course of 1963. DocKino (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done: [51]. (A mention of the October 1963 Swedish tour. The huge US popularity of "I Want To Hold Your Hand before the end of the year is already mentioned. For good measure I've toned down "worldwide", replacing it with "international".) PL290 (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "1970s" subsection, we learn about compilations such as Love Songs and Reel Music, but not the much better known, much more significant Red and Blue albums. DocKino (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the "1970s", shouldn't the long-running Broadway musical Beatlemania be mentioned? DocKino (talk) 05:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having reached the point in the article where the knife attack on Harrison is discussed, I can see Indopug and Wesley's point. I'm not certain whether it needs to be mentioned or not, but it is certainly overemphasized right now. It calls at most for one sentence, just like the murder of Lennon. DocKino (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I trimmed a good amount of extraneous material from the passage, the "2000s" subsection retains a mention of the ceremony for Harrison's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. For consistency, we either have to cover Lennon's star at the appropriate point in the narrative, or cut this bit. My vote would be for the latter. DocKino (talk) 06:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the "2000s", Past Masters is referred to as if the reader is supposed to know what that is, but it is mentioned nowhere previously. DocKino (talk) 03:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the start of the section about Revolver, the clichéd phrase "a quantum leap" is used. Can that be reworded? For one thing it's a phrase I dislike, for another it's repeated later in the article in a quote from Gould. Another reason is that not everyone views Revolver as being that far ahead of Rubber Soul - George Harrison for one; in Anthology he said that he couldn't see much difference between them, calling them Volume 1 and Volume 2.
    In the same section we have two Pitchfork quotes right next to each other, separated only by a footnote, which I find a bit awkward: Pitchfork describes it as "the sound of a band growing into supreme confidence" and "redefining what was expected from popular music."[117] "Woven with motifs of circularity, reversal, and inversion". It could do with a couple of words between the two quotes to split them up.
    Also, if a section is called "Legacy" it implies that it should talk about marks they left on culture that lasted beyond their breakup - the "Influence on popular culture" subsection does that a bit (probably not enough), but the "Recreational drug use" subsection only talks about the band's own drug use during the time they were together. Perhaps that section should be moved somewhere other than "Legacy", or maybe its content should be split up and moved to the appropriate places in the main "History" section? --Nick RTalk 12:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I look at addressing your concerns, I'll leave a thought on one aspect to see if you and others agree: it seems to me that the only drug-use-related "legacy" relates to the petition calling for the legalisation of cannabis, and although, as famous people among other famous signatories, The Beatles would have influenced that petition and its effect, even that is not really a mark they left on culture, more a sign of the times they were in. My immediate thought is to at least move "Recreational drug use" out of Legacy, and I am rather taken with your suggestion of distributing its contents about the article instead of keeping it as a section. I will start to try and do that shortly, unless there are objections meanwhile. PL290 (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nick, I believe I've now met all the above concerns as I've outlined below, but please let me know if shortcomings remain. PL290 (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "1970s" says "the American release of the original British CDs" (which should obviously read "original British albums on CD") happened in 1986. According to the "CD releases" subsection this happened in 1987. Which is correct? The "1970s" says that after this release "Capitol deleted the post-breakup American compilation LPs from its catalogue". Please clarify whether or not this includes the Blue and Red albums. DocKino (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having just done a pass through the entire article, I have what I think is my last substantive query. It has to do with the final paragraph of the lead. I'll reproduce it here, without all our nifty links and citation callouts:

According to the RIAA certifications, The Beatles have sold more albums in the US than any other artist. They are credited with 6 Diamond albums, as well as 24 Multi-Platinum albums, 39 Platinum albums and 45 Gold albums. In 2008, Billboard magazine released a list of the all-time top-selling Hot 100 artists to celebrate the chart's fiftieth anniversary, with The Beatles at number one. The Beatles were collectively included in Time magazine's compilation of the 20th century's 100 most important and influential people.

  • Perhaps the issue leaps out when framed this way? The entire paragraph--four distinct items--is US-sourced (as is, by the way, the one location-specific bit of recognition in the preceding paragraph: the Rolling Stone album rankings). Is there not some comparable UK-based information that can be added here? It doesn't have to be exactly parallel; it doesn't even have to be quite as extensive (the US is the premier entertainment market)...but something (or two) is surely called for. DocKino (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, one more. This too is something that struck me in the lead, but probably needs to be addressed in the primary text. Here's the passage:

Their clothes, style and statements made them trend-setters, while their growing social awareness saw their influence extend into the social and cultural revolutions of the 1960s.

  • First off, a minor point: "Their clothes [and] style" isn't great. Maybe "Their fashion sense", "their visual style", or some similarly encompassing phrase.
  • Second, and more importantly: In the entire narrative, I can identify only one plausibly "trend-setting statement", which is also the only evidence I can identify of "their growing social awareness": Lennon's comments about the decline of Christianity and the Beatles' status relative to Jesus. (Their involvement with the Maharishi was undoubtedly "trend-setting" [though the article doesn't state so], but was not--to the extent described in the article--essentially a matter of "clothes", "style", or [verbal] "statement".) That's really not sufficient support for this very impressive declaration in the article's lead paragraph. This could be addressed in a variety of ways--quoting a couple of other notable public statements; discussing the subject matter of some of their later song lyrics; referencing biographers' or cultural historians' descriptions of their cheeky attitude, early on (Starr's "I'm a mocker", perhaps?), and open alignment with countercultural movements and attitudes, later. There are hints of that at the end of the "Legacy" section--but that comes very late, and anyway describes their effect rather than, again, their own "statements" and/or "social awareness". DocKino (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done: [65] - I have recast the sentence in the Lead to focus on what's historically significant, and added three passages in the text showing the build-up of fans' interest in Beatles lyrics as the ground base for the later sociopolitical influence. PL290 (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that that's a good place to discuss the (over-)analysis of their lyrics that took place at that time. But I'm not sure about mentioning the speculation that Mr Kite might refer to Kafka - that seems to be a quite obscure theory (at least, I hadn't heard it before) about a specific song, so should only be mentioned in the "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!" article.
        If we must refer to a specific song at that point in the article, perhaps it would be better if, after the mention that the Beatles' lyrics were receiving serious analysis, we note that Lennon responded by deliberately making "I Am the Walrus" as obscure as possible. (Although it's probably unnecessary, given that the McCartney quote in that paragraph already does a good job of conveying their bemusement at critical analysis of their lyrics.)
        Basically, I think that any mentions of specific songs in this career-overview article have to be there for really good reasons - because they were particularly commercially successful (like "I Want to Hold Your Hand"), because they represent "firsts and lasts" ("Dizzy Miss Lizzie" being their last cover; "I Me Mine" being their last recorded song) or because they can be used to represent a lot of things in their career (like the way "Norwegian Wood" is used to represent their interest in Indian music). I just don't think that the mention of "Being for the Benefit of Mr Kite" is as strong as those, and maybe another song should be used as an example.
        Having said that, it's good that "Revolution" is mentioned later in the article in connection to the events of 1968 (although that paragraph does get a bit bogged down in the complicated chronology of that song). --Nick RTalk 22:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know--I found the "Mr. Kite"/Kafka interpretation, with which I was also unfamiliar, to be a very informative example of the seriousness (or, at least, attempted seriousness) with which The Beatles' songs were being analyzed. That particular interpretation may be relatively obscure, but it's more informative in this context than, say, the much better known "Lucy"/LSD interpretation, given that we've already encountered the "Norwegian Wood"/pot hypothesis. A specific example of "serious analysis" is called for, and "Kite" seems likely to be one of the best available. I've rephrased the line to make clearer that it's offered as an example of a more general trend, rather than for its particular notability. Of course, if someone recalls an equally informative but more celebrated example (sourced!), it can easily be substituted in. DocKino (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well put, I feel (and the rewording is good—thanks). I think the three current examples give a clear demonstration of the progressive influence of Beatles lyrics, moving through analysis with a simple "pot-head" connection (which we're told was quite wrong, and "So I lit a fire" referred not to smoking pot but to burning the girl's house down!), through a perhaps more thoughtful "Mr K." association of the psychedelic with the surreal (echoing Martin's Lennon/Dali analogy), to, finally, a profound and literal message being sent and received by "Revolution" (albeit one which was then thrown into confusion by the contradictory versions). Nick, if you still object to this or anything else, please don't hesitate to identify any and all aspects. PL290 (talk) 07:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reference style
  1. Most of the shortened footnotes end in a period, but a few don't
  2. Shortened footnotes have the dates in parenthesis— not an egrigious issue, but it does differ from WP:CITESHORT
  3. Inconsistent use of citation templates: Badman, Keith and Mark Lewisohn do not use one
  4. The Lewisohn refs are a bit hard to follow since they use inconsistent ref names— Lewisohnxxx for the most part, but LewisohnChronicle69 in one place. Ditto for Miles; not egregious, but it makes maintenance more difficult
  5. Consider formatting References and Further reading with {{refbegin}}
  6. Consider formatting the inline cites with {{harvnb}}; this will neatly link the notes to the references; see Chaco Culture National Historical Park for an example
  7. Consider formatting all references as shortened footnotes; again see Chaco Culture for a perfect example of this use
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the variety of citation styles that exist, I suggest consistency is of prime importance and clearly your first and third (and ideally fourth) points should be addressed. However, I must admit what you propose is very neat. I would certainly consider choosing that arrangement for a new article and I'm quite attracted by the idea of reworking the citations in this article along those lines. I leave the thought here for others to react to if they wish, and I'll also raise it on the article's talk page to see whether there's consensus for such a change. PL290 (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit of confusion in one of the recent additions:

However, the version of "Revolution" that appeared on the White Album continued the phrase "count me out" with an extra word, "in"...

  • As phrased, this suggests that what the listener hears is "count me out in". That's not right, is it? If it is right, it needs to be made a bit clearer how that could possibly work musically.
    • It is right, it is what the listener hears. Lennon sings both because he was genuinely unsure when writing the song whether violence could be justified. Howver, when it was re-recorded for a later B-side, he omitted the "in".--Pawnkingthree (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I dusted off the turntable, and slapped on Le blanc for the first time in a while. And, of course, you're right. It doesn't really work--musically; conceptually's a different matter--and that's just how it is. I copyedited the passage to make it a bit terser, hopefully mitigating the sense of getting "bogged down" in the chronology that Nick commented on. DocKino (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On another note, a consistent style for the title-as-noun needs to be decided on. We have The White Album earlier in the section; the White Album in the recent addition; and "The White Album" in the "Studio albums" subsection below. DocKino (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a point of arguably relevant information, I'll note that the unofficial names of the 1962–1966 and 1967–1970 comps are currently given in style 2: the Blue Album and the Red Album. DocKino (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An impressively researched and thoughtfully focused article on one of the most important topics in the field of popular culture. On a note both personal and procedural, thank you PL—by virtue of your clear-eyed dedication to improving the article and your unegotistical attitude here, you have made this experience at FAC an exceptionally productive and fulfilling one. DocKino (talk) 10:27, 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 promoted by Karanacs 18:51, 3 November 2009 [66].

Tropic Thunder

Nominator(s): Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I have been working on this article for several years now, helping it to reach both GA and A-class. I've been fortunate to get multiple free images for the article, something that is usually rare for a film article. The article makes use of the new list-defined references citation style and has had a recent copyedit to improve the prose. I look forward to addressing all suggestions for further improving the article. Happy reviewing! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

On first look, a great start. I started copyediting the article, check my changes but I think they make things flow better and remove some extraneous detail. One issue I noticed immediately is that the last paragraph should probably talk about the disability controversy, since it's given a good chunk of weight in the article body... and perhaps maybe a line about what critics liked and disliked?

  • On the images... I'm iffy about File:TropicThunderDowneyCruise.png. At the very least it needs a more personalized fair use rationale, but I'm not sure if a fat suit and blackface equals the threshold of significantly increasing reader understanding. It's touched on in both development and reception, but only in a general sense... I'll probably leave this to the other reviewers to decide.

I'll try and take a look tomorrow or the day after, complete the copyedit, and come back with any issues I see. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the initial copyedit, I appreciate it. I expanded the lead a bit, please take another look. As for the use of the two screenshots, they provide a better understanding of the extensive changes between the actors and the characters. The roles didn't just use a few dabs of make-up and some fake hair, but used a variety of changes to create a very different look for the two actors. For readers who don't see the film and just read the article, the screenshots can illustrate the significant changes that were used to portray the two characters. I've gone through and updated the fair use rationale, and if you can think of how it can be expanded further, that'd be helpful. I tried looking to some recent film FAs that focus on characters, but there wasn't anything more extensive than what I've added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through again and done some more line edits, in addition to some styling (mostly I just desized the images and staggered them a bit, but I also condensed the promotion section.) Couldn't the soundtrack reviews be prosified? It seems odd to have this forced line break for information in infoboxes that can simply be shunted to the body. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the new changes. I added the reviews from the infobox to the prose, and split up the paragraphs so the score and soundtrack are separate (I also flipped the infoboxes around). Let me know if you spot anything else. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review:
  • Other images are fine, and good work getting OTRS releases for them. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for looking them over. I don't believe that the screenshots conflicts with NFCC#1, as the images are not of just the actors dyeing their hair or wearing a mask (or basically, looking very similar to how they normally look). These two screenshots provide readers with a better understanding of how in-depth the transformation was from the actors to the characters in the film. Readers may have difficulty trying to visualize Downey portraying a modern-day blackface role, or Cruise in a role that looks nothing like his other characters (side note, I haven't seen all his films, so don't quote me on that). For example, just because we have an image of Heath Ledger, shouldn't mean that we can't use an image of him as the Joker or of John Travolta and his character in Battlefield Earth (sorry for bringing up the bad film). If there were free alternatives of Downey and Cruise on set in their make-up, I'd be happy to use those, but none are available (I wasn't as fortunate as with the article on Borat). If I didn't believe that the screenshots provided a better understanding of the actors' transformation, I wouldn't have used them. But because these limited images provide a better representation in visual form of the text that details the changes that were used, I believe they are helpful to the reader and qualify for fair use. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, the two images of them out-of-character in the montage fail WP:NFCC#1. You need free images for that. Stifle (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you referring to the images on the left? Those images are free (see File:Robert Downey Jr-2008.JPG and File:TomCruiseDec08MTVwatch.jpg). I specifically got the author's permission to release the Tom Cruise image under a free license for use in this comparison. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case they are being used in violation of their license conditions (no link to license and derivative work not released under same license). To illustrate what you're trying to do, use {{multiple image}} with the fair use images separate from the free ones. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I used a different template, and split the images into two separate frames. Thanks for clarifying how to address this, I had tried to find other images that had used a free and non-free comparison, but couldn't find any to help with formatting. Let me know if there are any further issues with the images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine, no further issues with images. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Everything seems about right here. I trust there are no glaring issues. ceranthor 13:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking time to review the article. I don't believe there are any glaring issues, but if there are, they'll be dealt with quickly. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments Links fine. Current refs:

  • There is one link that needs disambiguating. Check the toolbox.
  • Ref 39 is missing a publisher, i.e. the website.
  • Ref 45 needs a page number preferably.
  • Ref 83 is "Metacritic".

RB88 (T) 20:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dab link has been fixed. 39's publisher's name has been expanded and 83 has been corrected. For 45, I had initially used an online source until the link went dead. I don't have access to the magazine itself to determine the page number(s) of the article. Let me know if you notice anything else. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be OK. I had a look at what's cited to it and I'm confident it can be used without a page number. RB88 (T) 23:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When their fed-up writer.. - not sure that I am happy with "fed-up" here, maybe "frustrated" or something similar is a better adjective.
Changed as suggested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
..but Grossman instead curses out the gang - ditto, odd verb construction.
Modified wording. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dialogue for unscripted portions of the storyboard was developed on set by the actors or was improvised - I am intrigued to know how much was unscripted - is there any information on this?
I'll have to revisit the commentary. I believe that there was a well-established script, but various scenes were improvised or modified by the actors. I'm currently away from home right now until Sunday, but will look into it further when I get the chance and modify the article accordingly. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support That is a huge list of References, can't help wondering if perhaps some of them are redundant. Have you considered using Reference groups so that for example all the DVD Commentary references could be grouped together? I believe that would make the section easier to parse (err more readable) and therefore more useful. There of course be other ways to make the References section a little less overhwhelming. -- Horkana (talk) 02:09, 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/Featured_log/November_2009&oldid=324737821"