I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA standards. There was no apparent opposition to the previous nomination, but it was not promoted because nobody gave a final decision. Ophois (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have all of the sourcing and image questions raised in the last FAC been addressed and have you gotten clearance from those editors? If not, this nomination should be withdrawn until they have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything was addressed during the previous nomination. I'm not sure what you mean by "clearance", but I already notified the editors that reviewed the previous nomination. Ophois (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The quote boxes use a dark red background that doesn't contrast well enough with the black text, so they are hard to read. I would just remove the custom color (to use the default). If you must use it, try a lighter red back or white text. --anoddname19:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, those non-free rationales. Would've taken too long to explain so I fixed them, but see the edit summaries. Let the new ones guide you in the future. --anoddname21:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all two (count 'em!) non-free images are explained in some form in the article (the first in "DVD release", the second in its caption), so I think that covers minimal usage and commentary. We know where they come from (I'm not sure we need to specify whether the second came from the TV or DVD version, unless they differed and we wanted to do comparisons) and who owns them, and they're low-res JPGs as such photographic/scan-style images should be. I think they're fine. --anoddname05:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One thing to note
I would like to add the Region 4 DVD info back in, as I can source it to EzyDVD, which I feel is a reliable source. It is a large retailer in Australia, and even has many retail stores. As well, it has precedence as a RS in other featured articles. Ophois (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the title of the season. It's just the numerical placement of the season within the series. The title of the season would be something like what Heroes does (e.g., "Genesis", "Villains", etc.). BIGNOLE (Contact me)20:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bignole, the companion doesn't say what show. However, Supernatural wiki claims that it was the set of Bordertown. This makes sense, although not RS. Ωphois15:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"At a young age, Sam (Padalecki) and Dean Winchester's (Ackles) mother (Samantha Smith) died a violent and unexplainable death" - Was she young, or were they young?
"Dean is forced to face his fear of flying by following its next target (Jaime Ray Newman) aboard an airliner. He and Sam manage to get the demon into a restroom on-board, but it flees its host during the exorcism. However, they continue the ritual, sending the demon back to Hell. " - Is it a she? Who helps Dean?
I haven't read that far into the article, so it may just be the episode section, but it's probably the whole thing. When I do a search for "ing", it looks like there are a couple hundred instances of it in the article. Some of them are fine, like the section titles "Writing" and "Filming", but some are instances of the passive "ing" thing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you an example. Taking "Provenance" at random.
"With all of the couple's belongings being taken to an auction house," - Maybe "All of the couple's belongings have been taken to an auction house,"
"Merchant having later killed his family and then himself" - Maybe "who later killed his family and then himself"
"Merchant's daughter emerges from it, having been the killer all along." - Maybe "Merchant's daughter emerges from it; she was the killer all along."
Those changes look good. A few more in that area that might be better reworded: "When a man is killed—his eyeballs having exploded", "The real Dean, having found the real Becky tied up in the lair", " her spirit becoming trapped within the mirror", ", Haley and Dean end up being kidnapped by the creature,", "young woman who was murdered after having her eyes cut out". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm done going through the episodes. As stated above, some I left because I feel rewording would make the sentences awkward. I'll look through the other sections soon. Ωphois21:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits, but changing some of them loses context.
"The real Dean, having found the real Becky tied up in the lair, confronts the shapeshifter, and shoots it dead—still in his form." to "The real Dean finds the Becky tied up in the lair, confronts the shapeshifter, and shoots it dead—still in his form."
This makes it sound like the shapeshifter is in the lair. Using "having" implies that it already happened and time has passed.
"discovers that a Vanir is being summoned" to "and discovers that a Vanir has been summoned"
The town didn't just summon the Vanir. They've been summoning it for years. The change implies, at least to me, that it is a new thing.
"discovers that a painted portrait from 1910 of Isaiah Merchant’s family—Merchant having later killed his family and then himself—belonged to all of the other murder victims" to "discovers that a painted portrait from 1910 of Isaiah Merchant’s family—who later killed his family and then himself—belonged to all of the other murder victims"
If, mess anything up, feel free to revert or adjust. The finding Becky thing is not super clear either way. Maybe it should be "After finding Becky tied up in the lair, the real Dean..." or something. Some more comments.
"Sam and investigate the brutal death of a student at a college" - ?
"conducting cruel experiments on his patients in order to test his theory that provoking extreme anger in his patients would be therapeutic for them." - Word "patients" used twice in one sentence.
"Cyrus tried to kill him out of anger, but he gained the upper hand with the help of his friends and ended up beating Cyrus to death, dumping Cyrus' body and truck in a nearby swamp." - "but"?
"Sam and Dean head to Hibbing, Minnesota, where a young boy witnesses a man vanish into thin air. While investigating, Sam is also abducted." - Was the man who vanished abducted, to justify "also"?
It's up to you. Basically, make it a good sentence instead of a not good sentence.
Changed to "Although their research shows no truth in the legend, the brothers nevertheless encounter the spirit, but it is different from what the legend describes. When Sam and Dean realize that the Mordechai's origins on Hell Hound's Lair has also changed" Ωphois00:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What a "legend" is in the "Hell House" ep is kinda unclear.
"After they learn that the owner of the motel they are staying at has a young child that has also fallen victim to the creature, they use the boy's older brother as bait to lure the shtriga. The brothers finally manage to kill it, and all the children recover." - Which brothers did what is unclear.
"All of the couple's belongings were taken to an auction house, so they check to see if a spirit may have attached itself to something." - Is there a better word than "something"?
"After asking Sarah (Taylor Cole)—the daughter of the auction house's owner—out on a date, Sam is able to get copies of the provenances of the items, and Dean discovers that a painted portrait from 1910 of Isaiah Merchant’s family—who later killed his family and then himself—belonged to all of the other murder victims." - That's a lot mdash'ing for one sentence.
" However, Meg tracks them down and attacks, but is caught underneath a mystical symbol known as a "devil's trap", which renders her immobilized and powerless." - "and attacks," sounds kinda funny.
""Dean is forced to face his fear of flying by following its next target (Jaime Ray Newman) aboard an airliner. He and Sam manage to get the demon into a restroom on-board" - Well, Newman is an actress. Is the "He" in "He and Sam" referring to her, or to someone else? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Although the villain of the episode "Hell House" has supernatural origins, the basis of the story came from a situation writer Trey Callaway had as a child, he and his friends having created a fake murder scene in an abandoned barn and then claimed to their friends that killings occurred there." - Awkward, or something.
"Kripke felt that the revelation of John being possessed by Azazel had to be, as it completed the two main storylines of the season—finding their father and tracking down the demon—at the same time, but had them find the characters in the same body." - Sounds funny.
"When Gamble and Tucker wanted to do an episode that featured friends of the Winchesters that had been mentioned in previous episodes" - One too many "episodes".
On a quick glance, far too many MOS issues, not ready for promotion.[2] Samples only, article needs WP:NBSP (times, episodes, Regions followed by number), WP:ENDASH (page ranges), WP:MOSNUM (# is not used in text, only tables, should be No.) and consistency in dates and page nos in citations. Also, the red quote box is very jarring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question. When you say "episodes", do you just mean like when it says "14 episodes", or does that include instances of "eleventh episode"? Ωphois18:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers and units should be joined by an NBSP... like Season 2, Episode 3, DVD 4, but not eleventh episode. The idea is to avoid having hanging numbers in text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's my first nomination in a while. To satisfy those who criticize tropical cyclone nominations, this is an article which encompasses an entire season of hurricanes. I believe that despite its relative brevity and short list of citations, it's well-written, accurate, and as ever, comprehensive. –Juliancolton | Talk18:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added support for alt text to {{Infobox hurricane season}}, so you should be able to do the alt text for the lead image now. I'm afraid the alt text for the tracks doesn't convey the gist of those images to the visually impaired readers. For example, for File:1941 Atlantic tropical storm 1 track.png the alt text is currently "Map of the Gulf of Mexico depicting the track of a tropical storm", which could describe half of all the tracks on that page; much better would be "A Gulf of Mexico storm track starts about halfway between the Florida panhandle and Yucatan, heads west and a bit north, and makes landfall near the Texas–Louisiana border." Similarly for the other tracks.Eubulides (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Respect to Velmer Smith, but her work is not RS, as its SELF published, see the file location? ~/velmer Accepted triviality argument.
Velmer Lenora Smith is listed as a DeRidder Historian, and given the uncontroversial nature of the information cited to that source, it isn't an issue. –Juliancolton | Talk23:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If an unpublished report, it shouldn't really get quotes or ital: ^ Jon Friesner (April 1993). "Hurricanes in Belize". Forest Department. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
This is an unpublished report. Published works are cited with Italics or "Quotation marks". Unpublished works, such as unpublished reports, don't take these. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PhD (actually an ScD) thesis miscited, please cite as a Thesis: ^ Edward Morgan Brooks (1945). "An Unusual Rainfall Distribution in a Hurricane" (PDF). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
Theses aren't books. You're citing it as if a) Its published, b) Its a book. The citation needs to indicate that the work is a doctoral thesis, and not use published work citation formats, such as Italics or "Quotes"Fifelfoo (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The timeline having August November and Decemeber included seems wrong and redundant since those months didnt have any storms Also it might be worth shortening the names to just the numbers.
The Infobox Hurricane season says that there were two strongest storms but doesnt cite any pressures, where as all the Storm infoboxes state pressures and suggests that H5 is the strongest of the season and not both H4 and 5.Jason Rees (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's an Atlantic hurricane season? Is this about the hurricanes over the Atlantic Ocean? If so, state this fact before going on to tell us what the season was like in particular. Don't presume that your reader knows what you are talking about. They might have found this by clicking "random article". Amandajm (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyediting needed. Looks basically solid but the prose could tighten up. Did a few changes (reducing overuse of commas, etc.) until reaching the second paragraph of hurricane 2. Five sentences in the passive voice within the same paragraph is definitely too many. The next paragraph after that starts out in the passive voice also. Please give the page another tweak for that sort of thing. Durova36602:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've gone ahead and removed as many instances of passive voice as possible. Unfortunately, in many cases the lack of specific details prevents me from doing this. –Juliancolton | Talk05:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has recently gone through peer review and I feel that it is now ready for featured status. To the best of my knowledge, this article includes all encyclopedically relevant information on the animal that has been published. Yesterday, I renamed the article to the name under which it is most commonly known, Lundomys, as explained at length here.
Thanks go to Finetooth, Aranae, Ruhrfisch, Rlendog, and 6th Happiness for constructive comments at the peer review and elsewhere. Ucucha21:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alt text done; thanks.Alt text is present (thanks), but its contents need some work. Alt text should be verifiable by a non-expert who is looking only at the image (see WP:ALT#Verifiability), but the existing alt text contains mostly info that a typical Wikipedia reader won't know from the image. For the map, please see WP:ALT#Maps for a guideline and examples. For the lead image, please imagine that you're describing the image to a non-expert over the telephone.Eubulides (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The alt text for the mandibles is good; thanks. For the map, though, "Map of South America marked by red and blue colors." doesn't tell the visually impaired reader what a sighted reader can see at a glance, for example, that the current range is roughly coterminous with Uruguay. Again, please see WP:ALT#Maps.Eubulides (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thanks for your comments. On the "reed" link: My source only talks about "reed", not about the specific kind of reed. I could link to reed bed, but that is not completely appropriate as the link does not refer to the habitat, but to the individual plants. I would think that most people know what "reed" is, so I deleted the link.
The only(!) ext link is dead, you probably need to update the link
Wow, IUCN apparently changed all their link locations overnight. I fixed this one; we'll probably need a bot to do that across all the many articles which also link to the Red List. Ucucha12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
in Frietas ref, the families should not be italicised
I know it is wrong, but it is what the title of the article is. I already placed a "sic" in hidden text to indicate that. Ucucha12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate the languages of the non-English refs
Any reason why the publication names are not italicised?
I see that as unnecessary formatting. It's in keeping with the house style of journals like American Museum Novitates. Ucucha12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of red-linked technical terms, eg lophodont. You need to either write something for the link to go to, or explain the terms in the text, or remove the redlink if its already explained. Conversely, why do common words like "fur" need a link, or even worse, a redlink (tufts of hair)
Lophodont is now explained. I believe all other technical terms that need it also have an explanation. "Tufts of hair" links to the specific anatomical term for these tufts, "ungual tuft", which will one day get an article and, I think, merit a link. Ucucha12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It now says "the palate ... is perforated near the third molars by conspicuous posterolateral palatal pits." Doesn't that make it clear enough what those pits are? In a couple of other articles, I used something like "PPPs, perforations of the palate near the third molar", but I think the sentence flows better like this. Ucucha14:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The karyotype is 2n = 52, FN = 58 and consists mostly of acrocentric or telocentric autosomes I shouldn't have to read another article to make sense of this. Are we talking about the number of chromosome pairs? What's FN? What's an autosome (no link) what's metacentric (no link)?
It builds nests up to 1.5 metres (5 ft) above the water, similar to those of Holochilus Strangely, I don't know what a Holochilus nest looks like (must have missed that lesson), please describe.
The intention of that was not actually to enable people to understand what the nest of the either of the two looks like, but only to provide the notable fact that these two animals build nests which are similar in many respects. I clarified that now by taking the similarity part out to the next sentence. Ucucha12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, do we know what the nest looks like? It's supported by reeds, so is it above the ground? Is it open or enclosed? Is it made from reeds, twigs or what? Jimfbleak - talk to me?13:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a long quote in Spanish about this in Voss and Carleton (p. 34), but I couldn't make too much sense of it. I'll see what I can do. Ucucha14:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a little more. There's no information, unfortunately, on what it actually does in these nests. I don't think a lot of them would fit in. Ucucha20:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardinas 1995, at least, has on-line text. Can you please check if any other papaers can be linked
Almost all do. I provided links now. It's funny that this article is now actually the top search result in Google for a number of the article titles of the references. Ucucha12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - all the new links checked with the linkchecker tool except iucn, although it does actually work. Can you add to the Steppan ref that it requires a subscription please?Jimfbleak - talk to me?13:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the minor issues outstanding above, I have no other specific issues. I'm not far off supporting, but I still have some nagging doubts about the accessibility to someone lacking a scientific background. I'll wait a couple of days and have another read through, and see if there are any comments in the meantime. Jimfbleak - talk to me?13:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I've tried as I could to avoid making the article too inaccessible for non-specialists, but I'm open to any suggestions for further improvement. Ucucha14:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. They're describing both Holochilus and Lundomys nests together, which are similar but may not be identical. They mention nests 2 to 3 m above the ground, for example, but the quote in Voss and Carleton (1993, p. 34) says 1.5 m, and I am more inclined to believe the original source. I'll see what I can make of it later today. Ucucha18:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. One danger of using the wildly inaccurate convert template is that you can end up with nonsense like 9 to 11 centimetres (4 to 4 in). Please recalculate by hand or replace with 3.5 to 4.3
Thank you for having a look at the links. As far as I am aware, I do not need to use any particular style of citation as long as the style is consistent within the article. As I mentioned above, the style I use is consistent with what journals in the field do. Ucucha18:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I read that it is rarely encountered (the reason for no images perhaps?), could that be added to the first line of the lead ... 'a rarely encountered rodent species ...'? I think that 'taxonomic' could be wikilinked, this would explain the section header of 'Taxonomy' as I (as a person who knows very little about biology) did not know what it meant, I looked it up using the search box. The only other suggestion I can think of is the use of sub-headers in the text for readability if that could be achieved. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)13:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Some of the reasons both for the lack of photos and for its apparent rarity may be that it is active at night, has a limited distribution, doesn't live in a very accessible habitat, and is probably fairly difficult to distinguish from Holochilus brasiliensis in a photograph. I would prefer not to put the "rarely encountered" bit in the lead, because its apparent rarity may actually only be the result of insufficient effort to locate it, as the text explains. I think it would be misleading to say that it is rare without this bit of context.
I wikilinked "taxonomy" in the lead.
The article is not that long, so I don't think section headers are that important. Also, I can see few other ways to divide the long sections (Taxonomy and Description) than by creating a separate subsection for each paragraph, which I don't think is appropriate. Ucucha13:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, it is your call. I tried some headers in my sandbox [5] to see how it would look, not technically correct headings perhaps (and one latin name spelt incorrectly I notice, apologies!) but I did manage to divide some related paragraphs. This section of an article recently passed FAC with many paragraph sub-headers, although it could be said that the need for them was greater there. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)15:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also tried something like that (didn't save it, though), but the problems I see with it are that "Reclassification" is not a completely accurate summary of what happened (it was discovered again independently, not reclassified, by Hershkovitz) and that, to me at least, your organization of the "Description" section suggests that the first paragraph is a summary of the following three subsections, which it is not.
I think a comparison to the Rolls-Royce FA you mention reinforces my point: it only has one-paragraph sections where information relevant to the article is relatively limited ("Derby" there, "Natural history" and "Conservation status" in Lundomys), but still uses long sections where appropriate (the "Supercharger" sub-subsection, which is about as long as the "Taxonomy" section in Lundomys). Ucucha16:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think my comments illustrate the problems every attempt to insert subsections into this article. When there is consensus that subsections are needed here, I will insert them; but I feel that they are not needed and hard to insert in an accurate way. Ucucha16:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments I'll begin a lookover and make any straightforward changes (feel free to revert if I change the meaning!). Looks good but the clear challenge here is the balance between plain English and exactness of meaning. If we can reduce technical words and make it more accessible then this is desirable Good work in trying to reconcile some plain and technical english - a very tricky task! :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...recognized five synapomorphies for the group --> "recognized five (common) features unique to the group" I was thinking that "synapomorphies" is a pretty esoteric word to the non-taxonomist. However, it is important not to change or lose meaning.
..in the morphology of the first lower molar --> "in the shape of the first lower molar" (any meaning lost by this use of a plainer word?)
Any plainer English conversions of anatomical bits in the Description section would be a bonus :)
Thanks! With the synapomorphies, we have the problem that they are not unique to oryzomyines: there is some homoplasy, with Reithrodon also lacking the suspensory process and various akodontines and others also lacking the gall bladder. I could replace "synapomorphies" with "shared derived features", but I'm not sure whether someone who doesn't know what a synapomorphy is is any more likely to know what "derived" means in this context.
I've attempted several other changes to make the text less jargon-ridden. I didn't say "shape", because that to me refers to the actual outline of the molar (whether it's broad at the front or narrow, for example), but did get rid of the "morphology". Ucucha13:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As it turns out, an image of the skin does in fact exist, thanks to the Smithsonian. I uploaded it as a fair use image and it's in the article now. Ucucha15:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Lundomys skin USNM.jpg - Please add the name of the copyright owner to the fair use rationale. Your explanation of why the fair use image is justified is convincing to me. To make it super-duper strong, however, you might add a source for your statement on the talk page. Awadewit (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your further comments. I added to the file description page that it is (C) Smithsonian Institution and added some sources to my comment on the talk page. Ucucha01:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do agree that the jargon could be cut down a little, but overall, this is an excellent example of getting a lot out of a little for a Wikipedia article. If only there were a few dozen more contributors like you, Ucucha… innotata (Talk | Contribs) 18:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1c & 2c checked. double checked (06:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Decline 1c. Location of publisher use inconsistent in bibliography style., eg. Rowman & Littlefield, a publisher without place identification lacks place identification; E.P. Dutton has it. Penguin Books a publisher notorious for having different publication locations. You probably want to keep New York: OUP. Suggest: Location data provided for non-obvious locations (non-University presses), or where University presses are notorious for having multiple publication locations (Oxford etc). This would impact on your citation-in-notes style. Otherwise citation style is mostly consistent (see below on Tucker).
[reply]
Completeness, obviously there are limited journal articles dealing with Ton That Dinh, Why was George McT. Kahin "Political Polarization in South Vietnam: U.S. Policy in the Post-Diem Period" Pacific Affairs, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Winter, 1979-1980), pp. 647-673 not used? 03:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Comments: Tucker (fn4) not in bibliography, and full cite follows first citation. Either move bib data to fn4 from fn7 or add Tucker (2000) Encyclopedia for bib and short cite both. Tucker's cited 3 times. Consider adding to bibliography.
Consider style wrt Halberstam; Singal (2008) in short cite format. Its only co-authored, not an "and others" situation, consider changing citation to Halberstam; Singal, p. n. in short cite format. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done refs. Hadn't known about Kahin. Will have a look. I don't think I need to put Singal in the shorthand. All he did was prune the book, removing whole chapters, whole passages. He didn't tweak in the middle to change the meaning or anything. He didn't even bother to check some rather obvious typos etc by DH YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3 - File:Diem dead.jpg - We need more specific information on the source for this image. What does "National Archives" refer to? Also, what does the book say that leads us to believe this is a work of the Federal Government? Awadewit (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Striking oppose. Since the image is from the US National Archives, you can probably find a link to the image record online. It will have detailed information about the image and perhaps a digitized copy, which would be of higher quality. I suggest looking for it. Awadewit (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Born into a nominally Buddhist family, Dinh converted to Catholicism in the hope of advancing his career." When? Seems to have been prior to 1954, according to "Cold war mandarin: Ngo Dinh Diem and the origins of America's war in Vietnam" p. 160. Another sources places the conversion in the 1960s, but that would seem to be erroneous.... That whole paragraph... could be reorganized a bit IMHO.
If you can't find the year of the conversion, then that's OK, but the sequence of events should still be clarified. The way the paragraph reads now, it seems as though he converted after 1958. I don't think that's the case. His conversion should be mentioned at roughly the spot where it happened in the context of the article... probably in the first paragraph of the "Early years" section. Do you agree? Ling.Nut (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In "that all the generals except Cao were in the plot" and "and would prevent Cao from storming the capital" I'm a little unclear who Cao is.
As for the charges, "falsely accused" (as the article says) and "trumped up" (your words above) both suggest that Khan knew the charges were false at the time when he made them. However, the article merely says he later produced documents which proved the charges were false. That sentence is more noncommittal... Did he know they were false when he made them, or not? If not, or even if it is unclear, the the phrase "false charges" in the lede should be changed to "charges that were later shown to be false." Ling.Nut (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe article reports highly critical observations about its subject who is a living person. Given the high standard expected in BLPs, and WP:LEADCITE, I am concerned about there being no cites in the lead for the following:
"A favourite of the ruling Ngo family, Dinh received rapid promotions ahead of officers who were regarded as being more capable."
"He converted to Roman Catholicism to curry favour with Diem, and headed the military wing of the Can Lao Party, a secret Catholic organisation that maintained the Ngos' grip on power."
"he was regarded as a dangerous, egotistical and impetuous figure with a weakness for alcohol and partying"
The bibliography supporting this article appears to contain no works at all by Vietnamese authors. Almost every single item was published in the United States. In these circumstances, I would welcome nominator's (and others) comments in relation to FA criteria 1c and 1d "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic" and "it presents views fairly and without bias". hamiltonstone (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well none are published in VN, but Nguyen Tien Hung was from SV and became a professor in the US after the fall of Saigon. As for Jackie Bong Wright, she is a Viet who married a westerner. As for publishing in Vietnam, wrt communist historians, their official history of the VN War is only one volume, short and simply refers to the war as VN vs US and habitually just refers to SV as US "lackeys" and "puppets" without going into any detail, just attack style. So there is no info at all, let alone informative info. As for South Vietnamese contemporary books that may present RoV people in a more sympathetic or normal way, they would all have been locked away in an archive far from public access after 1975, and aren't in the Western World except for a few government reports and PR that would have been exported to the US before 1975, but I checked a US uni library, and these seem to be restricted to collections of speeches by Presidents Diem and Thieu and other trumpeting of high-level stuff. I doubt Dinh and his colleague's secretary would have had time to write much in three months in power. As for memoirs by these officers/politicians after fleeing in 1975, they are printed in ramshackle Vietnamese American printing houses, and none are close to RS, and are more like printed webforums. The diaspora Vietnamese printing industry is very homemade and more of a billboard; in the newspaper where I live they usually print random things about some local cleric or community politician being a communist employee or a monk with multiple wives without any source. Sometimes they even photoshop pictures of their opponents with some woman and the glueing is all messed up. Another favourite is to write a story about communists and add a photo of one of them with a scar or a cross on their forehead. Straight copying from the BBC is the norm and goodness knows why they haven't all gone broke for being sued yet. Another officer also wrote his memoirs printed in a diaspora press and contradicted himself about his age three times and claimed to be a battalion commander at the age of 18, and gave out the names and addresses of some minors who were allegedly raped by a political opponent (BLP with a wiki bio so I won't name the accusee) in his book. So Dinh and his colleague's autobios aren't RS at all. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive)03:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. While I do not feel confident enough in this field to explicitly vote 'support', I found that response thorough. For the record, the depth of research appears excellent, the prose likewise and the referencing sound. If other editors find Yellowmonkey's response to my concern to be adequate, then I would certainly be happy to see the article promoted. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have problems with the article per se; I wanna go find out what the best sources are. But again I whine: it's Midterms, I'm spending tons of time grading papers, and my family is busily engaged in other family stuff. I hope I can contribute something soonish. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support by karanacs. I found the article well-written and very informative. I am confident in YM's description of the available sources, and the article does not appear to portray any particular POV. I also checked the images. All appear to be appropriately public domain (and note that 2 of the 4 were used in a previous FAC and were screened then). Karanacs (talk) 20:27, 20 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.
This is a relatively short article, but I feel it meets comprehensiveness criteria (and doesn't go into trivial details about plot). All references are reliable, and where possible the best sources have been used; some sources are used solely for author opinions, and are framed as such. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)20:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"this hesitance allows the humans to land on the ring, coordinate a resistance, and ultimately destroy the ring to stop the spread of the parasitic Flood, in conjunction with losing a Covenant ship Ascendant Justice to the Master Chief a short period of time later, resulting in the annihilation of a Covenant attack force" needs to be broken up more effectively. It reads poorly at the moment. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Full Support - I see no issues with the article whatsoever. An image of the Halo Wars Arbiter would be nice, but isn't necessary for FA. --Teancum (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For armchairempire, they're an established collectible/etc. site that has a team of editors and staff; I'm only using the reference to site their opinion in the article regarding an action figure. As for the Kotaku ref, I found a Todd McFarlane one that works just as well and replaced it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)16:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The armchairempire source is currently referencing the following:
"Following the release of Halo 2, Joyride Studios released an Arbiter action figure. This particular model was reviewed as a "great translation of the source material into plastic"." (lacks attribution to the site and appears to reference the first sentence also).
"The figure's dimensions were in proportion with other figures released by the studio, and the level of detail in the armor and weapons were described positively, but reviewers found fault with the neck articulation and design" (shouldn't it be "one reviewer found..."? and it's lacking attribution to the specific person/site)
"Other aspects mentioned were its compatibility with the Master Chief's action figure and its durability." (again, lacks attribution to the specific site) Ealdgyth - Talk17:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's more someone's bad judgment than an issue with this article: Luke Smith should have the disambig "(writer)" in all lowercase...instead someone moved it to uppercase and pointed the lower case title at a disambig that wasn't needed. I fixed that best I could.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lean support I am not a very knowledgeable about references, but I guess since the user above said they were fine they are. I am not really one to judge prose, however I did get cunfused in a couple parts, mostly "Gravemind convinces the Arbiter that the Great Journey spells doom for his race". It is not spelled out why this is bad. Can you explain? Also, there is an extra space in "Flood.[9]." Also Frank Oc'onner is repeated twice. Martin Raybourne (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is thoroughly comprehensive and is fully referenced with inlined sources. It has had a lookover by several other editors. Any tweaks that may come up can be readily and quickly fixed. Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do the infobox images intentionally lack alt text because (as the subject and the range of the subject) they are explained in the article? (The other images have good alts.)
Although mentioned as a relative, the omission of the Grey Currawong from the section on similar species seems nothing short of glaring. The race melanoptera of the Grey is, at least from my guidebook, very difficult to tell from the Pied.
I re-read Higgins, which comes across as pretty dismissive of confusing them, but you are right about melanoptera - the lack of white primaries is the key here. Duly added.Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its binomial names were derived from the Latin strepera, meaning "noisy", and graculina for resembling a Jackdaw. - Missing word?
The more southern the population of Pied Currawongs, the lighter the overall plumage (from black to a greyish black) is, the larger the body size, and the shorter the bill. - I had to read this a couple times to understand it fully. Could this be reworded a bit?
Yeah, this segment has done my head in. It was "The overall plumage lightens (from black to a greyish black), body size increases and the bill slightly shortens as one moves from north to south. The amount of white plumage in the tail increases, but on the wing decreases" before - I was (am) trying to describe how the bird gradually changes in its plumage and attributes from north to south, however I have had a block doing so. I will ask another helper presently. Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Little known, there is some doubt over whether ashbyi is a distinct subspecies or a colour morph of nebulosa. - What's little known? Confusing wording here.
subspecies ashbyi is little known. I will reword. I have reworded to:
"There is some doubt over whether ashbyi, which is little known, is a distinct subspecies or a colour morph of nebulosa." - could substitute ", about which little is known," for the segment in question if you felt it would flow better. Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, comments and declaration A nice article from an experienced FA writer. I am a fellow member of the Bird Project, so I'm declaring a COI, although I haven't edited this article. Most of my queries were dealt with at an informal project review prior to this FAC, but a few that I missed or are new additions follow Jimfbleak - talk to me?07:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In lead It is well known for its melodious calls, from which its common name is derived - The "It" is a bit detached from its subject, perhaps "This species" or similar? (done)
In northwestern Victoria, the Black Winged Currawong - Black-winged? (d'oh! done)
The Pied Currawong has been implicated in the spread of weeds by consuming and dispersing fruit and seed.[33] In the first half of the twentieth century, they... - Para starts with "The" but reverts to "they" thereafter (tried 'The species...' as a group sort of noun to distinguish...)
Pied Currawongs have been known to abandon nests once cuckoos have visited, including the existing currawong young - Reads oddly to a Brit, perhaps Pied Currawongs have been known to desert nests once cuckoos have visited, abandoning the existing currawong young? (yes, better)
Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks), except that it's missing for the infobox image. Please add alt text by specifying {{Taxobox}}'s parameters |image_alt= and |range_map_alt=. Thanks.Eubulides (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)(done)[reply]
The lead says "The Pied Currawong is well known for its melodious calls, from which its common name is derived", but the taxonomy section states "The precise derivation of term currawong itself is unclear; the most likely antecedent is the word garrawaŋ from the indigenous Jagera language from the Brisbane region, although the Darug word gurawaruŋ from the Sydney basin is a possibility". These don't seem entirely consistent, either in terms of MOS (the lead should summarise the body text) or in terms of facts (unless an ethnolignuist has determined that 'garrawaŋ ' or 'gurawaruŋ' are themselves onomatopoetic). Can someone clarify? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is tricky. None of the sources mantion the word onomatopoiec, even though that is obviously what is meant. Many aboriginal languages of eastern Australia are extinct in terms of speakers, and both the languages mentioned are included in this group. There is no source from the 18th or 19th century spelling out exactly where the word came from, hence it is speculative. I do see your point about marrying the lead and the body of the text though, and have had a go at reconciling them.Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*A suggestion re an issue raised above: instead of "...the lighter the overall plumage (from black to a greyish black) is...", simply have "...the lighter the overall plumage,..." the bracketed text, if absolutely essential, could be a separate sentence, but i don't think it is needed to give the gist of this.
done
*Related to the above. Can someone explain why the section on subspecies comes before the description of the species? That doesn't seem a logical sequence of information for a lay reader, for whom a description of the creature in question would be more important and more general in nature than a description of subspecies, which is less important and more specialised. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perennial problem with alot of bio articles. "Subspecies" as such belongs in taxonomy. We made the decision a while ago to place the Taxonomy section before the Description section because taxonomy defines what and where classification-wise it is, and (more importantly), one often wants to place photos in the description section, however the first section after the lead is often next to the lower portion of the taxobox on the RHS, which hampers image placement. We have alot of bird articles laid out the same way. I also see the lead as an overview which at least allows the reader to get an overall picture and hence not naive to what the bird actually looks like when they get to the first section. I am not a fan of splitting sections of naturally related material, and the other problem is transferring notes on subspecies to description, which means subspecies get mentioned in two segments, both taxonomy and description, also reduplicative. Ultimately, this way is not perfect by any means but the most satisfactory as far as I can see. :)Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A description was there of sorts but unformatted. I have now formatted. The book has a map and Higgins, Peter Jeffrey, John M. Peter, and S. J. Cowling are the editors and main compilers of information. I have cited what I am able. Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article on a major anti-submarine battle of World War II has been peer reviewed and passed a Military History Wikproject A-class review on 21 October and I now think that it meets the FA criteria. Any comments, suggestions and edits would, of course, be very welcome. Nick-D (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A quick read-through reveals no major issues. Nicely illustrated, well-written and seems comprehensive; all in all, seems to adhere well to the criteria. –Juliancolton | Talk05:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1c / 2c. Comment Dates are consistent. Morrison is incorrectly cited, its a named volume in a larger work, "History of United States Naval Operations in World War II. Vol. 10". 1c seems good. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ta! Just notice Polman, Siegal and Y'Blood don't have the publisher's locations listed, but your other bibliography items do, could you? (Especially where something's a Naval Institute, even though the nationality is obvious, its nice to make clear). Fifelfoo (talk) 07:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Interesting and enjoyable read - I can't spot anything wrong. One question: where it says ""shock interrogation" techniques" - is there any additional information on what exactly they are? It's not wikilinked and searching for the the phrase on Google doesn't bring up anything useful. As it's one of the more interesting/controversial bits of the article, it'd be good to has as much information as possible on it. (Or if it's a quotation then it'd be interesting to know who said it.) Trebor (talk) 14:14, 16 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.
I am nominating this for featured article because...it has been through a stringent review process in Military History Project, and recently passed the ACR. Upon re-reading it for the Xth time and comparing it to the FA criteria, it clearly meets them. This article started life as a request for a translation of an article on the same topic in the German wiki. Since then, I've expanded it to include several "children" of this article (bios of key individuals, some of the battles--these are emerging over time). Thanks for reading, and thank you for constructive criticism. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alt text done; thanks.Alt text is present (thanks), but some work is needed:
Support. Auntieruth55 has done a great job in bringing up the quality of this and related articles and I'm now convinced that it meets the FA criteria. Ucucha23:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I looked primarily at the content of the article; I did not check whether the images are good (3) or whether this article reflects a thorough survey of the literature (1c). Ucucha23:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this is a good point, Ucucha. Part of the frustration of this particular article was the paucity of "modern" source material (that is, source material written in the last 50 years). I found no "recent" monographs whatsoever, nor much in the way of periodic literature on the war itself (on related aspects, yes). Max Lossen wrote a magnificent two volume study of the war in the 1870s, for which he is justifiably famous among historians of the Reformation and Early Modern Germany, but only the first volume is readily available. There appear to be only 6-10 copies of the second volume extant!!! Since the requirement for Wikipedia is readily available sources, I did not draw (much) on Lossen, except for some material on Gebhard himself. I chose instead some studies that were informed by Lossen, primarily Hennes and Ennen. The modern works cited refer to the Cologne War, but are not specifically about it. The encyclopedias I consulted are remarkably brief for such an important conflict. If one searches Worldcat for the Cologne War (as keyword), there are about 1400 hits, but only a couple dozen actually belong to this subject: the rest are Cologne in 1918 or Cologne in World War II. Or Cologne and its Nazi past. So the material on the Cologne War itself is spotty; I'm hoping someone does a dissertation on it soon! Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said this mainly as a disclaimer, as the WP:FAC instructions encourage. I think I've amassed a fair deal of general historical knowledge over the years, but I certainly don't have the grasp of the academic study of history that would enable me to assess with confidence whether this article fulfills criterion 1c, although my strong impression from reading the article and your comments is that it does. Please let me know when you can use any help from me with this or similar articles--I have access to an enormous amount of sources at Harvard, and I may also be able to help with Dutch-language sources. Ucucha01:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Buchraeumer Comments: It says in the article that William of Orange was murdered in July, and that..."Elizabeth responded in early November, directing him to talk to Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester....". Now, William was murdered in July 1584, but Leicester only departed for the Netherlands in December 1585, one and a half years later (and received his command only a little before that). I would have corrected this little chronology error myself, but I don't know which November is meant...Otherwise a very interesting topic (I must read it with more care yet); thanks for including the funny note on Agnes von Mansfeld allegedly travelling to England! Buchraeumer (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC):::You're welcome. I thought it was a great bit from Tenison. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weeelllll....I've clarified the chronology a bit...these 19th century sources (which are the only monographs on the war) are sometimes either misleading or misinformed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: I put the Peace of Augsburg at the beginning of the religious reservation, it was somewhat confusing in the middle of the paragraph. Hope it's o.k. Buchraeumer (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign involvement: I have removed November, no year for the moment and inserted late 1585, I hope this solves the problem by blurring; one could also leave out specific dates altogeher, to avoid confusion.Buchraeumer (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC) I have just looked up "Truchsess" in Leicester's Netherlands correspondence: Elizabeth instructed Leicester to help him in her general instructions to him, dated December 1585. Buchraeumer (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The book is: *Bruce, John (ed.): Correspondence of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leycester, during his Government of the Low Countries, in the Years 1585 and 1586 Camden Society 1844 [11]. The page is 15 (where she commands him to help Gebhard). I assume that Mabel Tenison simply forgot to mention the year, or else Gebhard could have written to Leicester to in England, before L. went over, but then he would not have been E.'s "emissary" yet.Buchraeumer (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead has now 5 paragr.s, should not have more than 4 (MOS). I am sorry it's so long now, it was perfect with three paras. I am satisfied with the chronology, but still have to read it through.Buchraeumer (talk) 07:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'm okay with 5 paragraphs, and it summarizes better what the article is about.
Wasn't Maximilian II, Ferdinand's son, the emperor who came nearest to being an inofficial Lutheran. Historical convention and textbooks are pretty sure of that. I thought Ferdinand was very orthodox. I will not quibble about that, but if Ferdinand was anyway Lutheran, his son was much more so. Buchraeumer (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Background': first section is IMO too detailed/long, I doubt we need the whole Reformation here and it's not an easy read, one short para would have sufficed; but this will no way warrant an oppose; just my personal impression. In contrast, the following three sections are excellent and flow much, much better!
It's considerably longer, then shorter, then longer than it used to be. Previous reviews have been unable to decide how long it should be. I think it is needed to set up the complexity of the later situation, a morass of political, dynastic, ambitions that acquired a religious "excuse", but were less about religion and more about imperial politics and personal ambition.
'Cause of the war': The map at the section start grows excessively large on smaller screens; wouldn't be a fixed size, perhaps 350px or a bit larger, be better?Buchraeumer (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is a co-adjudicator? It's not linked, and it is odd not to learn after so much detail about Cathedral Chapters before. It is also unclear why Ernst couldn't become one, as 'Trentine proceedings' links to the Council of Trent in general.Buchraeumer (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gebhard at Augsburg: Augsburg had only a bishop, it pertained to the archbishopric of Salzburg (see e.g., Putzger: Historischer Weltatlas); so was his uncle rather the bishop of Augsburg? Or was he another archbishop altogether?Buchraeumer (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
why Count von Neuenahr, not of, like in Count of Solms-Braunfels? Either all Counts of or Graf von Neuenahr. Would suggest of (several instances with Neuenahr).Buchraeumer (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to follow the conventions of the articles about them or their families.
as I said, I tried to follow the conventions of established articles, when there were established articles. Otherwise, I stick with the German. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Sack of Westphalia':date discrepance: "on 18 March they captured Werl through trickery", how come they get attacked from outside the city on 3 March, and retake the city on 8 March, while soon afterwards Schenck is already heading to Venlo? Should be clarified.Buchraeumer (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I tried the 4 paragraph lead, and it is not as effective as the 5. Having a lead of 5 paragraphs is not an actionable objection, as I understand it. Four paragraphs is a guideline, and in this case, each paragraph deals with a specific element of the article. The fifth paragraph was added up front based on comments of a reviewer who said it should not be assumed that everyone would know where the Electorate was located. She had a valid point about the lead, so I fixed it, and that made it five paragraphs. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Having carefully read this article, I think it meets the FA criteria, as far as I am able to judge. It is well-structured and presents this complicated conflict in a very enjoyable way. It is neutral, comprehensive, factually correct and well-illustrated. The wider consequences of the war were of great significance and the article presents this aspect excellently. Buchraeumer (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Cologne War, 1583–1588, also called the Seneschal War or the Seneschal Upheaval, was triggered by the 1582 conversion of the Archbishop-Prince Elector of Cologne, Gebhard, Truchsess von Waldburg, to Calvinism, his subsequent marriage to Agnes von Mansfeld-Eisleben in 1583, and his declaration of religious parity for Protestants and Catholics in the electorate.
You've told me what triggered it. It's like beginning an article on World War I with "World War I began when the Duke of Austria was assassinated..."
State that it was a war between who and who about what issue. State in the first sentence what country (or present-day country) the event took place in. Don't expect people to know where Cologne etc are. Amandajm (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! That tells me as the reader just what I want to know. Small matter of expression:You have used the word "occurred" twice in succession. Is there another way of prasing it in one or other of the sentences? Amandajm (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport: this is a very good article in my opinion and I will be happy to support it for FA status, although I currently have a couple of issues that I feel need to be addressed:
could the citations that are the same be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS? (I don't know if is necessarily a requirement, so I won't oppose on this point, it is just a suggestion), e.g citation # 7, 8 & 10 are the same (Holborn p. 241) and the ref checker tool indicates four other refs that are the same (Holborn pp. 243-246, Holborn pp. 201-247, Benians p. 708 and Parker "Flanders" p. 17);
This is not a requirement, and makes it difficult to add material and sources, plus it makes identifying the footnote ponderous. Some of these citations are incorporated into annotated footnotes as well. Once the "named" refs template goes into effect, this cannot be done. I think they cut down on the flexibility of citing, not to mention making it difficult for someone trying to locate the cite (you have to find the a-b-c-d- etc.), and are altogether ponderous and bothersome. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the lead is possibly one paragraph too long at the moment. Isn't there are requirement for it to be only four paragaphs, while it is currently five? Could one of them be consolidated perhaps?
Yes it is 5 paragraphs, and the MOS says it should be four. However, creating four paragraphs of the lead makes it less accessible. Each paragraph deals with a primary issue of the war; that said, I've combined paragraphs 3 and 4. 17:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The MOS does not require that the lead is no more than four paragraphs, it only gives this as a general guideline, and in this case, I agree that the five-paragraph layout is preferable. Ucucha18:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the images and they all seem to have correct copyright tags, however, the image of Gebhard von Waldburg is missing a date, which makes its copyright expired tag a bit of a leap of faith (although I'm fairly certain it is copyright expired, if there was a date, even an indicative date, e.g. c. 1700 or whatever, it would make this certain);
In the References section not all of the works are formatted with a template, e.g. {{cite book}}, (the Gotz work, for example)
The Goetz work is actually an encyclopedia and the cite encyclopedia template stinks. In fact, this is the last time I will use these templates for anything. They are unmanageable. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The References section is slightly out of alphabetical order, e.g. Lossen appears before Jackson.
The Catholic Encyclopedia is in fact a publication of 1913, why is this a reliable source for information on Colonge, William V of Bavaria and Westphalia? Are you using this in a historiography section where almost 100 year old concepts of history are discussed? Otherwise, I suggest finding a more up to date source.
I'm using them to supply definitions and facts that require documentation. Definitions of a Cathedral Chapter haven't changed, nor have definitions of communal life. And these sources are readily accessible. Ernst is still the third son, regardless of how old the source is. He didn't cease being the third son with newer publications. Ernst was still the bishop of Liege, Friesing, etc., regardless of how old the source is. The rationale for using these, rather than something "newer" (i.e., a current encyclopedia, for example), is that in those old sources, these facts were included. In newer sources they are not included, quite often. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes "Schenck, A.D. (Alexander DuBois) (1883). Rev. William Schenck, his Ancestry and his Descendants,. Washington: Darby" reliable? It's here on google books and I can't say that I'm that impressed with its scholarship and lack of footnotes.
no, not particularly impressive scholarship-wise, but he has consulted (not cited) the relevant publications (Hennes, Ennen, Lossen) on the battles and issues in question. It is in English, although without citations), but his narrative corresonds to the German scholarship. and since it is one of the few pieces in English, it would be readable. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the publisher for the two Waldburg authored pieces? Is this a family genealogy website? If so, what makes it reliable?
the Waldburg family websites are connected to the Waldburg museum. I found nothing there that contradicted the material I read in an Bader, Karl S. (Karl Siegfried), Der deutsche Südwesten in seiner territorialstaatlichen Entwicklung, Stuttgart, Verlag Müller, 1950. And it is far more accessible and verifiable than Bader's book. There is also Joseph Vochezer, Geschichte des fürstlichen hauses Waldburg in Schwaben, 1907. I found that the Waldburg cite corresponds in fact (although not cited) to the material contained in these books, and is generally more accessible to the average reader. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you italicise the titles of books in the citations but not in the references? This is inconsitent, suggest italicise all.
this is why I DETEST the citebook template. It won't italicize titles. should I convert everything out of the template?
Cite book italicises just fine... I think your problem is that you have them as {{cite book |title=''European warfare, 1494–1660'' |last=Black |first=Jeremy |authorlink=Jeremy Black (historian) |coauthors= |year=2002 |publisher=Routledge |location=New York |isbn=9780415275323 |page= |pages= |url= |accessdate= }} when you want {{cite book |title=European warfare, 1494–1660 |last=Black |first=Jeremy |authorlink=Jeremy Black (historian) |coauthors= |year=2002 |publisher=Routledge |location=New York |isbn=9780415275323 |page= |pages= |url= |accessdate= }} Note that the first gives you Black, Jeremy (2002). European warfare, 1494–1660. New York: Routledge. ISBN9780415275323. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) while the second gives you Black, Jeremy (2002). European warfare, 1494–1660. New York: Routledge. ISBN9780415275323. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help). Remove the '' from all the titles in your citebooks, you don't need them and it'll do the italics automatically. In fact, in ANY of the cite templates you don't put in any wiki formatting, as the joy of the templates is that they do it for you, whether it's italics, bolding, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk19:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through and removed the templates from the bibliography. For the sake of consistency with the citations. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC) (p. s. I still don't like the templates...they don't do the citation in the style I use).[reply]
Current ref 33 (Wember, Family Genealogy table" lacks a publisher and last access date. Is this a personal site on genealogy? If so, what makes it reliable?
He's actually a fairly reliable genealogist, consults the relevant historical sources on the different families he's added.
these cite such a minor point in the text, just points of interest, really (for example, were Karl Mansfeld and Agnes cousins or siblings), that I cannot imagine they will be an issue. If they are, I will delete the whole part that uses them. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd really rather that the older scholarship not be used, but it's your choice. There are any number of places that the information would be available, any college level textbook on the time frame would give you the information you want, I would expect. It's your choice, though, but it may get you opposes. I will leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk19:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to use new scholarship too, but we can't always get what we want. In this case, older scholarship is what is available. Max Lossen wrote the definitive (19th century) piece on the war in 1870-1878, but only one volume is readily available (there seem to be only a dozen or so copies of volume 2 extant), and only 2 other books have been done on it since then, both shortly thereafter. The war is mentioned in other sources, but not discussed in detail, except in some of these encyclopedias (Herzog, for example). In the interest of completeness, I used them. Catholic Encyclopedia, etc., these were just filling in some specific details, checking on names, etc., getting definitions of stuff. You might be surprised on how much of the event is not included in modern text books. I always use when I teach the period, but there is very little in the text books. Holborn covers it some, but...not that much. There hasn't been a monograph on the subject, in English or German, since Hennes and Lossen's. A couple of articles, but everything else is just a mention. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is still incorrect. Notice that the date is "June 2008" - that is the date of uploading. Please add the date that the engraving was published. Also, the author is clearly not "User: Mbdortmund", as he is not a 17th-century engraver. :) Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Godesburg 1583.jpg - Please add the detailed information from the version on the German Wikipedia to the image description page so that the author, date, etc. are correct.
I'm not able to fix this because it is scheduled to be featured on the Main Page. Fixed on Wikicommbons page here but cannot fix in the english Wiki page. Apparently whoever runs the Main Page is not as particular about detailed information as FAR is. Adewait, if you have the clearance to get this fixed, here is the detailed information.
I can't edit a protected page, either. We'll have to wait a few days. In the meantime, the Commons page has a few issues. Note that the date, source, and author listed for the image are for the upload, not the image itself. Please fix that (same as the issue above). Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
okay, the issues of date and artist are fixed. We shouldn't have to edit the protected page, I think, because it should be deleted after the picture has been on the Main Page. The Commons page is correct now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you okay with the images now? I've added the date and artist to both pics, on the commons page for the godesburg file, not on the temporary page in wikipedia english, which is protected. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have the attention span to give this a proper reading right now, but I've done some work on the citation formatting. First let me say that they were in better-than-average shape to start with :) I don't think you'll have any quibble with my individual-citation edits, but you will want to look at the last one, where I tried to clean up a lot of very minor issues (mostly moving punctuation outside quotes/italics around the titles of works, and some fullstops->commas where it matched your predominant style). I did make a few educated guesses in that last edit, in places where italics/quotes/plaintext seemed warranted. By all means revert me if I've made some boneheaded errors, but I promise, I was careful. Incidentally, are you familiar with the editrefs script? It's not an automated fixer (I would never recommend such a thing), but makes editing references for this type of cleanup much easier. Ping me if I can help walk you through it; it's very simple. Maralia (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, Maralia. I've gone through and moved commas inside the quotation marks. I would swear I've done that at least once already. I've not used the editrefs scripts, and cannot locate it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then my last edit made more work for you—I misread the style you were using, and had moved some of those outside. Very sorry for that, and I'll take another look at a later date to make sure none of the errors I introduced remain. Are you following an established citation convention? It's by no means required; I'm just curious for my own edification, as I can't recall a style with this particular punctuation, and I'd rather avoid any future blunders, however well-intentioned.
I will drop a post on your user talk explaining the editref script.
A point of clarification as regards the summary below: I have not yet read the article, and from reading Amandajm's review comments lately, she seems to be commenting on article leads, so she may not have read the full article either. Maralia (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Magicpiano comments
This article has come a long way even since I passed it for GA -- it also came a long way during the GA process. I will make only one minor comment, that does not detract from my support for this candidacy. While I originally criticized Auntieruth for (among a list of other issues) not having enough explanation of the background, I think the article may have tipped a little too far in the amount of background (thus putting me into the "it ought to be shorter" camp on that count). I realize the subject is a complex one, and much of this I suspect is not widely known to a North American audience, which is why I don't think this criticism is sufficient to impede the article's promotion. (I'm also not sure exactly what to trim, other than to observe that Religious divisions and Charles V's abdication are probably where I would start looking for material to trim, compress, or relocate.) Magic♪piano00:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Summary. Have I dealt with everyone's issues? Trying to make this easier for Sandy to find and sort out.
Support from Ucucha, Buchraeumer, Magicpiano, JN466, and AustralianRupert.
ref review from Ealdgyth, some resolved, 3 left open because she isn't sure how to handle.
Maralia, Amandajm have read and not opposed or supported.
Comment It's a long article, and while I participated in the A-class review, I have lacked time to review it properly. Unfortunately, my time is still very limited. Comments below:
We say, "in the so-called destruction of the Oberstift. Villages, abbeys and convents and several towns, such as Linz am Rhein and Ahrweiler, were plundered and burned, by both sides.", sourced to Hennes p. 64. Hennes says, "Im Oberstift nahm Salentin von Isenburg die Städte Linz und Ahrweiler und das Amt Altenrath für das Kapitel in Eid und Pflicht." While the page does name several places that were destroyed, in Eid und Pflicht nehmen does not mean "destroy", but "to take an oath of allegiance from"; so Linz and Ahrweiler were sworn to allegiance. They were not among the places destroyed according to the indicated page. --JN46608:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think we have a problem with the Hennes page numbers. Auntieruth kindly let me have a pdf of Hennes (1878) and Ennen (1880) a few weeks ago, and said at the A-Class review that she had originally referred to another copy of Hennes. The version listed under references is the 1878 version. A number of the citations in this (permalink) version of the article don't check out:
*##Ref. 25 is to page 110 in Hennes; there is nothing about Salentin on that page.
Ref. 38 is to pp. 78–80 in Hennes; there is nothing about Agnes on these pages.
Ref. 51 is to page 45; there is nothing about Karl on this page.
Ref. 52 is to pp. 45–46; there nothing about Gebhard and Agnes travelling to Zweibrücken and Dillingen on these pages, nor anything about Adolf.
Ref. 60 is to page 50; our text describes Adolf as "a successful and cunning military commander whose army secured the northern part of the territory." Page 50 does mention Adolf being active in the Niederstift, and describes his (unsuccessful) attempt to take Rheinberg through a ruse.
Please check through the remaining Hennes refs.
I'd feel better if we had a reference for "Before she would accept Gebhard's proposal, she insisted that he convert to Calvinism." Neither Hennes pp. 6–7 nor Ennen p. 294, the references given in that paragraph, say that quite so explicitly. Hennes p. 6 says, "Eines Tages erschienen zwei Brüder der Gräfin ..., bedrohten ihn, und brachten ihn dahin, das Versprechen zu geben, ihre Schwester zu heirathen. Anfangs war er entschlossen, bei der Religionsänderung und Verheirathung, die er beabsichtigte, auf das Erzstift zu verzichten." (Gebhard intended to marry her and change his religion). Ennen p. 294 says, "Gebhard's katholischer Glaube, der keineswegs in tiefinnerer Überzeugung wurzelte, kam in's Wanken, als er sich entscheiden mußte, ob er auf die Bischofsmitra verzichten und dem geliebten Weibe treu bleiben, oder seiner Liebe entsagen und ein Glied der kirchlichen Hierarchie bleiben sollte." (Gebhard's Catholic belief, which was by no means based on his innermost conviction, started to waver when he had to decide whether to renounce the bishop's mitre and stay faithful to the woman he loved, or to renounce his love and remain a member of the church hierarchy). --JN46609:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the text. The "insisted he convert" seems to come from a English translation of the ref and I cannot figure out if it is mine, or someone else's (old college notes), but based on the references available now, this version makes more sense. I used your translation, J. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Checking Hennes: I had a look at the Hennes pages given for notes 87 and 89. In case of note 89 they are correct. In note 87 they also deal with Schenck, but it is not the general description of him as in the article. In that particular case, I have reason to assume that the relevant paragraph-portion is wholly covered by Parker, Geoffrey. The Army of Flanders and the Spanish Road, 1567–1659, which is also given as source. I would suggest to drop the Hennes ref in note 87.Buchraeumer (talk) 12:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As usual it is very nicely written, and Auntieruth has worked diligently to address any and all concerns and nitpickings we could throw at her. --JN46622:42, 17 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.
This article recently passed a GA review with no suggestions for improvement. It is well-sourced, and, I believe, comprehensive. I welcome any comments that may improve the article, and hope to see it promoted to FA. Acdixon(talk • contribs • count)18:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't notice this. That's the wrong claim, anyway. It should be public domain because it's his congressional portrait, which is automatically PD as a product of the federal government. This image is hosted at Commons, and I never work over there. Can someone advise me on how to make this change? Acdixon(talk • contribs • count)18:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the tag. Is there any information about the date or author of the image? As well, the image page should probably have a description. Steve Smith (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, are you sure that's his congressional portrait? That bit in the bottom right looks suspiciously like a copyright notice, though I can't make quite make it out at this resolution. Steve Smith (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In light of this ("Not all images are in the public domain") and in light of what really does look like a copyright notice, I don't think that we have enough evidence to conclude that that's in the public domain. Steve Smith (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to consider images that the LoC labels as "no known restrictions on publications" as public domain provided it seems likely that they would be, so I'd say that one's fine. Some other editors are more stringent than me on this, though, and demand affirmative evidence that it's in the public domain. So I'd pass the image review with that image, but I can't guarantee that somebody else won't come along and make an issue of it. If you want to be on the safe side, I'd suggest uploading your preferred image to Wikipedia and claiming fair use, since the subject's deceased, it's the only picture of him you use in the article, and there are no certain-to-be public domain photos of which we're aware. Steve Smith (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image of J.C.W. Beckham also used in the article comes from the Harris and Ewing Collection, the same one as the above-referenced image of Stanley. In the Beckham image description, there is a template from Commons that says the entire collection's copyright has expired under terms of its gift to the LOC. I'm willing to trust that it's PD. Acdixon(talk • contribs • count)14:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need both the hatnote for Owsley Stanley as well as a sentence about him in the first paragraph. I also don't think that's relevant enough for the very first paragraph.
Removed.
Why would the American Tobacco Company support a tax? It needs to be clearer sooner that it had a monopoly.
I'll work on this.
OK, I finally got a chance to provide additional details here. Does this make it clearer?
"failed by a vote of 20—14...95—17" Use an endash, not emdash.
Fixed.
"His opponent, Republican Frederic M. Sackett, secured" > His Republican opponent Frederic M. Sackett secured"
Done.
Is there anything else about his later life? Is there anything noteworthy in his legacy, things named after him, etc?
Nothing is mentioned in any of the sources I've consulted, although it's tough to prove a negative. I'm not aware of anything that was named for him.
Websites in the bibliography not directly cited in the notes can go in external links, namely the Biographical Directoy of US Congress link.
This website was directly cited. Should be clearer after I took Fifelfoo's suggestion below.
External Links should be the last section of the page.
"^ "Kentucky Governor Augustus Owsley Stanley"" replace with ""Kentucky Governor Augustus Owsley Stanley". National Governors Association." to indicate corporate authorship / publisher authorship and keep stylistic unity, indicate its a citation rather than an annotation.
Done.
To meet your own style the following citations require location information:
Johnson, E. Polk (1912). A History of Kentucky and Kentuckians: The Leaders and Representative Men in Commerce, Industry and Modern Activities. Lewis Publishing Company. Retrieved 2008-11-10.
Klotter, James C. (1996). Kentucky: Portraits in Paradox, 1900–1950. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN0916968243. Retrieved 2009-06-26.
Powell, Robert A. (1976). Kentucky Governors. Danville, Kentucky: Bluegrass Printing Company. OCLC 2690774.
Done, although Powell had a location before.
Sorry, I'll try to use my efficient eyeballs in future!
Due to Penguin's notorious multiple publication locations, the following citation requires a publication location
Jackson, Blair (2000). Garcia: An American Life. Penguin Press. ISBN0140291997. Retrieved 2009-08-18.
"Kentucky Governor Augustus Owsley Stanley". National Governors Association. Retrieved 2007-08-23.
I think the fact that the link and access date are provided in full bibliography is sufficient.
Non decline related Comment: its beautiful to see short citations like, "^ Harrison in A New History of Kentucky, p. 214" which indicates clearly that its a work in a collection.
Actually, A New History of Kentucky is not a collection, but there are two sources with Harrison as the primary author, so I have to specify.
Comment. Alt text done; thanks.is partly present (thanks), but it is missing for the lead image (in the infobox) and the signature. Please see Template:Infobox officeholder for how to add them. The signature alt can be just "A. O. Stanley", but the lead image alt text should have enough detail to give the reader a feeling what Stanley looked like, as this is the first image they'll encounter; see Wikipedia:Alternative text for images #Portraits.Eubulides (talk) 05:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport—Another strong Kentucky politician article from Acdixon; nice work. Specific points:
Thanks for noticing my work. I'm still working on more Kentucky politicians, so I hope no one is tired of them yet!
I've done some copyediting; I took a fairly free hand, so please do revert and/or ask me if there's anything you don't like.
Nothing too onerous. I made a couple of changes.
I really don't see the point of that disambiguation hatnote. Is there any real possibility that somebody trying to make it to Owsley's page would make it to Augustus's instead?
I have seen a couple of places in the sources that refer to Augustus as "A.O." or "Owsley". I'm honestly not sure what was most common, since I wasn't born yet! I didn't actually add the hatnote, but I did leave it in place. I'm not strongly opposed to removing it, but I think one should remain on the Owsley Stanley page because of possible ambiguity.
Well, I'll leave it up to your best judgment.
Maybe mention his party affiliation earlier in the lead, to provide context to his rivalry with Beckham (i.e. that they're in the same party)?
I've made a change that should address this.
"Concurrent with his ventures in academe..." I'm not sure how I feel about this turn of phrase. Would object to seeing it boringfied?
Not really. I just couldn't think of a better way to say it.
Some of the early history seems a little thin - how did he get to be the Democratic nominee for Congress? Was his legal career one of particular distinction? It just seems like "academic administrator -> lawyer -> failed county attorney candidate -> CONGRESSMAN!"
The sources seem pretty light on that subject, too, although it's been a while since I looked at them in-depth. My guess is rural county + support for tobacco farmers + good public speaker = Congressman. Remember, everything he did before that was in central and eastern Kentucky. Once he came to Henderson County (western Kentucky, and a far different area culturally and economically) he was elected to Congress. I suspect he made a bit of a name as a lawyer first, but there aren't any specific examples of how, that I'm aware of.
Well, if that's a limitation of the sources, there's not much to be done.
I just reviewed the Burckel article, which is by far the most complete record of Stanley's record in the House. Of this career between his admission to the bar and his election to the House, it says "Moving then to Henderson in western Kentucky, he entered Democratic politics and served as a presidential elector for William Jennings Bryan in 1900. Two years later, Stanley won election to the 58th Congress, representing the largely rural tobacco-growing Second District." The only hope I'd see for filling in the gaps is to acquire a copy of Thomas Ramage's PhD. dissertation "Augustus Owsley Stanley: Early Twentieth-Century Kentucky Democrat" from the University of Kentucky, but I'm three hours from that library, and it isn't available online.
"public hearings on the tobacco situation" Did this situation extend beyond the tax? If so, how? If not, why not just say that the hearings were on the tax?
My impression is that it was about the whole idea of ATC having a monopoly, but I'll look at the source again. I need to do that for Reywas92's comment above anyway.
The hearings were indeed about the American Tobacco Company's actions as a whole, not just the tax. I've done a quick re-word, but it's not necessarily beyond improvement.
"McCreary was never a serious challenger..." Is elaboration on this possible? I'd have thought that a sitting governor would automatically be a credible candidate.
I can elaborate some, but I don't want to go too far off-topic. Best I recall, he had a reputation for flip-flopping on the issues (his nickname was "Oily Jeems" for that reason). Also, I believe he'd have been about 76 years old by then, so I doubt he was still a spry campaigner. Plus, Stanley and Beckham were already factional leaders in the party, so it was only natural that the campaign centered on them.
Okay, I agree that staying focussed is a concern, and that this probably isn't appropriate for an article on Stanley.
Is the anecdote about the puking and subsequent rejoinder ironclad? I ask because it sounds suspiciously like a story that circulates up here about renowned alcoholic John A. Macdonald, and I know that these things sometimes get assigned to different people in different places.
The anecdote is mentioned, with very slight variations, in at least three different sources that I recall. Each one acknowledges that it's an anecdote more than something reported in newspapers, etc., but the sources that do mention it are written by respected Kentucky historians and don't seem to discount its veracity; they just vary on the details, which is to be expected.
"...forbade public service corporations from contributing to any campaign." What's a public service corporation? Is that a widespread term in the U.S.?
Just quoting the source here. I don't know what it is either.
Any chance you could find out?
I'll do some checking, yes.
Looks like it's what is more commonly called a "utility company". I've added an appropriate wikilink for clarity.
"...many of her peers..." Is it standard to refer to states in the feminine, rather than the neuter? It kind of makes me cringe, but my sensibilities probably shouldn't have any privileged position on these questions.
I think so, kinda like ships and things. I'm not overly opposed to making it gender-neutral, though.
I've changed to "its" partly because it sounds far better to me but mostly because the state is treated as neuter elsewhere in the article.
Suits me.
"...the General Assembly approved funding increases in nearly every part of state government, including higher education." If increases were approved across the board, what makes higher education particularly noteworthy?
I'll need to look back at the sources to see if there were specific projects mentioned, but increasing funding to education was one of those things most Kentucky politicians tried to do during this era, so it usually got a special mention.
If there's additional context available, it would be good. Otherwise, no big deal.
What was the voters' verdict on the 1918 prohibition amendment?
I tried to find this, but never could. Best I recall, the sources seem to imply that it passed, but I never could nail that down. According to the wiki article on the Eighteenth Amendment, Kentucky approved the national prohibition amendment in January 1918, so its tough to tell if the state amendment went into effect or was superceded by the national one.
Pity, but nothing to be done, apparently.
Are specific election results available, perhaps to be presented in a table? The margins provided are somewhat less meaningful without context.
I can probably find the vote totals. Sometimes I give totals, other times just margins.
We hear nothing about his family until he dies. Could something be worked into "Early life" (assuming that's when he got married and had kids)?
There isn't much about them except that he married and had kids, then one of his grandkids became a drug icon. I originally had the marriage and number of kids in the Early life section, but it made for an awfully short paragraph and made it even tougher to work in the bit about his grandson later. I don't even have a name for his third son (the one who died) nor any details about how and when he died.
I brought this up with Thomas R. Marshall as well: is there a reason that the article includes both an infobox and succession boxes? My understanding that the advent of the former deprecated the latter, though if American political figures are working to a consistent standard that includes both, I have no objection.
I didn't add the succession boxes; I never do, but if they are there, I usually leave them. Personally, I think they're kind of unsightly, so if there has somewhere been a discussion with consensus to remove them, I'll happily abide by it.
Well, WP:TCREEP specifically advises against including both, though that's just an essay (albeit one that I think is widely accepted). I'd prefer to see it go, but it's up to you.
If it's widely accepted, I suppose we should leave them, but for the record, I still agree with you that the infobox is the more elegant solution.
Glad you enjoyed it, and its connection to Canada. (Incidentally, the librarian who helps me find most of these sources is also originally from Canada. Alberta, I think.) I'll await your reaction to my responses above, and also try to address the ones I've left open sometime next week. My wife and I are planning a short little weekender vacation this weekend. Thanks for your comments. Acdixon(talk • contribs • count)15:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alberta's the best part of Canada, as it happens. In fact, I've always sort of considered that your Wikipedia career is to Kentucky as mine is to Alberta (in case you feel stalked, I should point out that our paths previously crossed at FAC back when I was Sarcasticidealist). Anyway, I'll try to have some responses to your points waiting for you when you get back from vacation; enjoy it. Steve Smith (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched to support. I still think action on my points that remain unstruck would be beneficial, but it's certainly not necessary for featured status. Well done. Steve Smith (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please tell us what country Kentucky is in, in the first sentence. Don't presume that an ignorant Australian like myself knows every state of every country in the world. It's too much to ask. Amandajm (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. This article has been an astonishing amount of work, btw, it had to be completely rewritten. It is still in the course of an A class review at MilHist, but as comments had ceased I felt it was ready to go here. That got rid of a lot of image issues! I think you'll find it a good read of a guy often remembered for the wrong things (shoe banging).Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - having read this for about the third time (once per request, another during the milhist ACR, and a final time just now), I am convinced that it is ready for the star. Great job Wehwalt. —Ed(talk • contribs)21:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same; it is used as an EL. I will note in the ref that it is "available free at" but think it best to keep the link to the pay version as well, there are pictures in that version.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With that aside, there's no dab links (no easy task in a big article like this). An external link comes up "404" in the link checker, and even has "Page not found" in the window title, but works for me otherwise. A few images lack alt text—I assume those were intentional omissions—and the rest have alt text with no obvious problems. --anoddname00:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove the dead link. Oddly, that was just added to the article by someone else. I need to look at the alts, I had to add several images because several were found to have copyright problems. I have to go out now but will report back in the morning, either with alt text added or not.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a dead link (it does have text of a Khrushchev speech), it just appears as such to the link checker and to the site's own database (per the page's own window title). --anoddname00:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text is complete now. I didn't bring back the EL, because given Khrushchev's prominence and the number of EL's we already have, a link to the text of what seems a fairly random speech isn't needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NIB (Not in bibliography): ^ Schwartz, Harry (1971-09-12), "We know now that he was a giant among men", The New York Times, retrieved 2009-09-25 (fee for article)
NIB: ^ Shabad, Theodore (1970-11-24), "Izvestia likens 'memoirs' to forgeries", The New York Times, retrieved 2009-09-25 (fee for article)
NIB: ^ "Text of speech on Stalin by Khrushchev as released by the State Department", The New York Times, 1956-05-06, retrieved 2009-08-23 (fee for article)
NIB: ^ "Vast Riddle", The New York Times, 1953-03-10, retrieved 2009-08-23 (fee for article)
NIB: ^ a b c Birch, Douglas (2008-08-02), "Khrushchev kin allege family honor slurred", USAToday, retrieved 2009-08-14
(These four may be a style debate, but I hold fairly strongly to the disciplinary expectation from History for full bibliographies).
Otherwise 2c is acceptable, consistent.
1c: Sourcing shows a US source bias.
1c: Where are the scholarly journal articles?
1c: Where are the scholarly edited collections?
WP:MILMOS#SOURCES not met. Wouldn't meet Featured Article 1c as it lacks a full survey of the highest quality sources available (no scholarly journal article search conducted).
New Criticism related to Decline not from Military assessment Expansion of 1c concerns
FUTON via Scholar: Lenoe, Matthew, "Khrushchev Era Politics and the Investigation of the Kirov Murder", 1956-1957, Acta Slavica Iaponica 24 2007: 47-74.
FUTON via Scholar: P Jones "Iurii...ISBN5733103299." Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, 8, 3 (Summer 2007): 695–704.. Review article of Thaw Scholarship. (Note, not a book review, this is a RS Journal article).
FUTON via Scholar: John Rettie "How Khrushchev Leaked his Secret Speech to the World" History Workshop Journal 2006 62(1):187-193; doi:10.1093/hwj/dbl018
FUTON via Scholar: Another Review Article: David Wedgwood Benn "Review: On Re-Examining the Khrushchev Era: A Review Article" Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 56, No. 4 (Jun., 2004), pp. 615-621
FUTON via Scholar: Mie Nakachi, "N. S. Khrushchev and the 1944 Soviet Family Law: Politics, Reproduction, and Language" East European Politics & Societies, Vol. 20, No. 1, 40-68 (2006) DOI: 10.1177/0888325405284313
Citation from Scholar: @article{loewenstein2006re, title={Re-emergence of public opinion in the Soviet Union: Khrushchev and responses to the secret speech}, author={LOEWENSTEIN, K.E.}, journal={Europe-Asia Studies}, volume={58}, number={8}, pages={1329--1345}, year={2006}, publisher={Routledge}}
FUTON via Scholar: V.V. ZHURAVLEV "N.S. Khrushchev : A Leader's Self-Identification as a Political Actor" Russian Studies in History 42, Number 4 / Spring 2004 70 - 79
FUTON via Scholar: Paul Du Quenoy "The Role of Foreign Affairs in the Fall of Nikita Khrushchev in October 1964" The International History Review, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Jun., 2003), pp. 334-356
I understand that. I think some journal articles as you have cited would be very helpful for the article, and I'll see if I can find some access to some of them. I note that 1c says "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic." I think some of those articles could well be useful for points like the Secret Speecch and Khrushchev's overthrow, some of them look too specialized to be helpful in a survey which necessarily has to keep to the high points and is long even so (but not long when compared to articles on US Presidents at FA, and Khrushchev led his country for longer than any US pres except FDR. Certainly most of the biographical details and much of the description of what he did do not need to be sourced to scholarly journals. As for US bias, while the newspapers are all US, they are used for only a small part of the article. Taubman was American, I'm still searching for Tompson's, but the other authors are non-American.
The bibilography, I'll change that this weekend.
Anyhoo, I'll see about trying to get ahold of some of these journals. I'd appreciate the URL of the page where you ran that search, I had no luck with the search through Wilson that you proposed at MilHist.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised concerns about the applicability of this oppose at WT:FAC and will be guided by the ensuing discussion there, if any. While I want the best possible article, I don't want to throw in a couple of scholarly articles only to be told that that's not enough, or only for the sake of doing it. Therefore, I've requested some community input so we are all on the same page as to the standard to be applied regarding 1c.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, getting back to Fifelfoo's concern re sourcing, based on the discussions on the changes to 1c, the non-adopted proposals to enact a 1f and the discussion at WT:FAC, I am inclined to think that unless there is a showing that there is something missing or seriously wrong with the article, I do not believe that Fifelfoo's sourcing objection is completely applicable. It was plainly not the intent of those who voted for the present form of 1c to require the "highest" (even if scholarly articles are, and I would question that) sourcing, but merely insist on a high level of sourcing, which the sources in this article meet easily. Taubman won the Pulitzer Prize for his bio of Khrushchev, for example. No trivial or kid's works are used in this article. This is a bio of a figure in history about whom there is a large amount written. It is written in summary style, meaning that we don't get into intricacies. Scholarly articles generally do not replow the cornfields; they look for the intricacies. Here, the article is extensively, and I mean extensively sourced to well regarded books on Khrushchev and his era. The bibliographies for those books list many scholarly articles and collections. There may be articles which require the use of such scholarly articles. This is not one of them. It is comprehensive, verifiable, and uses solid works on the subject, most of recent publication (2009, 2008, 2006, 2003, 2001, 1996, plus Khrushchev's annotated memoirs published 2002-05 and used very cautiously). I will address Fifelfoo's 2c concern, that is placing all news articles used into the biblio, this weekend, as I said.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The citations above are complete academic citations in a common historical style. Some have DOIs. 1c is "1(c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic." Review articles, and recent specialist scholarship on aspects of biography or major political contributions (such as family law) should be addressed to be a "thorough and representative survey". V.V. ZHURAVLEV "N.S. Khrushchev : A Leader's Self-Identification as a Political Actor" Russian Studies in History 42, Number 4 / Spring 2004 70 - 79 is, in particular, a biographical article. For the article to meet 1c, it needs to account for the scholarship in journals. It doesn't not need to exhaustively reference every journal article; but I would be very surprised if Zhuravlev wasn't relevant. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I do not believe the article needs to discuss a family law passed ten years before Khrushchev attained power. Summary style is the name of the game here; this is a long article and I see little likelihood such a journal article will have anything which is worth adding to this article. To a certain extent, I feel as if the goalposts are on wheels here. I have no objection to obtaining, if reasonably possible, a small number of specific articles if it will satisfy your 1c concerns, or else explaining why I think they are not needed for the article as I did with the family law one. I should add that I have ordered a scholarly collection of articles edited by Taubman in 2000, though I don't know if it will come and be absorbed and inserted into the article during the course of the FAC, and the fact that they are from 2000 means that they were certainly used for Taubman's subsequent Pulitzer Prize winning biography of Khrushchev. But if you are going to require obtaining large numbers of articles "on spec", well, in that case, I will stand on the fact that no other FA reviewer has agreed with your objection, most have repudiated it, and I'll leave it to the good graces of the FA delegate. The fact that you think 1c should be interpreted in the way you do is interesting but does not govern. I am aware you have a 2c objection, but I will move the articles into the biblio. I should note that you have not yet addressed my similar question at WT:FAC. where I asked you if the article was cited in books which are cited, whether you felt that was sufficient.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have adequately expressed myself at length in relation to this FAC's process, and will review it periodically in relation to my reasons for declining. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not, as I have indicated that I don't fully understand your reasoning or what you would like to see. Since you decline my request for clarification, I consider your oppose unactionable for that reason as well as the fact that multiple reviewers disagree and multiple commentors at WT:FAC state that your view of 1c is not valid. Thank you for your contribution.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you appear to have literacy problems, and are not familiar with the disciplinary practice of history, in relation to 1c a thorough literature survey has not been conducted, in particular you have not used general or specific relevant journal articles, a key form of historical literature, please correct this. There is no time limit. If you don't have access to material, seek editors who do to collaborate with you. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest you avoid the personal invective. No one who brings a seriously considered FA candidate here has "literacy problems". Please note WP:NPA ("Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.") If you wish to state your requirements with specificity, I'm available to listen. Otherwise, I am content with the judgment of the FAC community, which has come down against you and is fully aware of whether I have "literacy problems", as it has passed 13 FA's in which I was a major contributor before the FAC. Including a number in the field of history.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, let me quote, yet again, "1 It is - (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic." You are resistant to acquiring and using the variety of literature in edited collections and journals. The article is not thorough, and is not representative, as it fails to take account of two major publishing modes of academic history. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting to Milmos for a sec, "articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians." Which this is. However, recent books, or monographs, as you put it, by respected historians which rely on the field of published works, are superior for encyclopedia purposes because of the fact that they are in a better position to judge weight than we. The article contains up to date sources by respected scholars (Carlson, the most recent book, is not a scholar on Soviet matters, but his book generally covers Khrushchev's two US visits and is used for that purpose). I'm going to leave it at this, because long pieces turn off reviewers, and we can continue this at WT:FAC if you want, but you are for sure prizing form over substance. That being said, I admire your having the courage of your convictions, though I don't agree with you and don't think your opinion should override that of the FAC community. Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this article and WEIGHTing in relation to 1c, you've neglected the Review Article mode of publication in journals which is the premier manner in which academic historians evaluate secondary source weighting. WT:FAC would be the more general issues, which can probably proceed there. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are not academic historians, and a Wikipedia article is not a master's thesis. I appreciate the effort to upgrade WP's standards, but doing it by unilateral opposes based on what you think our standards should be is not the way to go. WP works by consensus, and while there are times that one person has to drag consensus with him, this isn't one of those times! Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the reasons stated here by many editors, it is clear that Fifelfoo's concerns do not reflect a consensus view of WP:WIAFA, since his comments there have not attracted support, whereas the opposite views have. Accordingly, I consider them unactionable for purposes of FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments leaning to support (support now unconditional, see below): First, I entirely agree with the above declarations that 1(c) is satisfied in this article. The "decliner" would need show specific instances of material omitted or inadequately covered, to justify an insistence on further sources. This is my first reading of the article (I missed the peer review); it is rather long so it may take me a few days to complete my comments. In general the article looks meaty and impressive - my comments on the first quarter are below. They are mostly nitpicks, an art at which I excel. To help differentiate I have put my slightly more substantial concerns into italics.
Early years
I can't sort out who is who here: "According to Khrushchev in his memoirs, Shevchenko was a freethinker who upset the villagers by not attending church, and when her brother visited, he gave him books which had been banned by the Imperial Government." Exactly who gave books, to whom?
Just a thought: "Employed by a workshop which serviced ten mines..." This is "ten", not "tin", is it?
"With the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II in 1917, the government in St. Petersburg..." Presumably this means the Menshevik government, should say so.
The last sentence of the fifth paragraph (re his appointment as a commissar) really belongs to the following paragraph.
We need more information in the text to indicate when WWI ended (so far as the Russians were concerned) when the civil was began and who the combatants were in that civil war. OK, anyone reasonably well-read in 20thC history will know these things, but assumptions shouldn't be made about foreknowledge.
As now written, you have the Germans "invading" the Donbas after the conclusion of the peace treaty. Shouldn't this be "occupied" rather than invaded? Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...loyal to his Bolshevik principles" - the article has not clarified when Khruschev actually became a Bolshevik by conviction. A word or two should explain what Bolshevik principles would be offended by setting foot in a church.
There is no reference to "Donbas" in the section, so the title is somewhat cryptic.
This section is dateless until the third paragraph. When did he go to Rutchenkovo? When was he offered the Pastukhov post? When did he join the CP and when was he appointed a party secretary?
"Bailiwick" should preferably be linked, though the link article is unsatisfactory since it doesn't give the secondary meaning. Maybe consider an alternative term?
Kaganovich protege
"Rightists" may be too vague a term to use in this context. Is it possible to extend this description?
Tompson says the Moscow organization was a "bastion of support for the right opposition", that is, to Stalin, and that after the First Five-Year Plan, there was a resurgence of rightism. After that, he calls them "rightists". I will add they to some extent opposed the government. I doubt they lived long, under the circumstances that would shortly arise.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Third paragraph, first line: "he" needs definition
Early relationship with Stalin; involvement in purges
This is an unwieldy section heading. I'm not sure a semicolon is a good idea (it should probably be a colon anyway). The section is basically about Khruschev's role in the purges, so perhaps that should be the main focus within the title.
Clumsy sentence: "Khrushchev expressed his support for these trials as the trials proceeded in 1936:" Perhaps "In 1936, as the trials proceeded, Khruschev expressed his support:" (though "expressed his support" is a bit of a euphemism, considering what he actually said!)
"Party leaders were given numerical quotas of "enemies" to be turned in and arrested." I would like to see a specific citation for this statement.
"...Kiev, which was again the Ukrainian capital.." Unexplained unnecessary detail. Suggest delete "which was again"
Dodgy sentence construction: "Since Khrushchev was again unsuccessfully denounced while in Kiev, his biographer, William Taubman, suggests that he must have known that some of the denunciations were not true and that innocent people were suffering." I suggest "Biographer William Taubman suggests that, since Khrushchev was again unsuccessfully denounced while in Kiev, he must have known that some of the denunciations were not true and that innocent people were suffering."
Done all this. On the Kiev as capital, though, I think we have to leave something about that in there, as Kharkov is mentioned as the Ukrainian capital, so a reader might see that as a factual error. I shortened it though.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brian: Thanks for the review, I agree it is a long article. I will implement them today if I possibly can. I will only leave comments if I do not accept a change or there is some comment I need to have made.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am continuing to read and comment on the article, but to avoid this review becoming impossibly lengthy I will post routine comments/queries to the talk page. I will only bring issues here if I consider them significant. Please bear with me if this process takes a little while, but I want to do the article justice. Brianboulton (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please take your time, Brian. This is a long article, the longest I've done (though Neville Chamberlain is going to be longer) and everyone has been focused on the 1c issue. Someone has to go in and check for dust on top of the furniture, and you are an excellent person to do so.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here are some points of concern, all fairly minor, picked up on reading through to the "Education" section. A much longer list of nitpicks awaits your attention on the talkpage. Unless something untoward happens (collapse of civilization as we know it etc.) I should finish the review tomorrow (ominous news re Chamberlain, though):-
A brief explanation of what Operation Uranus was, might be better than relying on the link. (Great Patriotic War)
Likewise with the fabricated Leningrad case. (Stalin's final years and Struggle for power)
"In September, Khrushchev was elected as First Secretary of the Party." Who "elected" him? (Struggle for control)
Last paragraph of the "Struggle for power" section needs to indicate the direct role played by Khruschev in the demotion of Malenkov, otherwise the final sentence is difficult to understand.
"During Khrushchev's rule, forced hospitalization for the "socially dangerous" was introduced." (Political reform) I would like to see a small amplification of this rather sinister-sounding statement.
"One adviser to Khrushchev was agricultural charlatan Trofim Lysenko,..." Not an encyclopedic, or neutral, introduction to this man, even if the description appears warranted.
Education: the final paragraph of this subsection is perhaps a little dismissive of the progress made in the Soviet school education system in the Khruschev era. I believe there were some positive reforms. I know the article isn't about that, but perhaps a sentence could be found that recognises that there were some achievements in the education field?
(later)Additional thought: back in the eighties I did a study of post-war Russian education in an option module on Comparative Education as part of an MA course. I don't have those books or notes any more, but I seem to remember that while Khruschev's "polytechnical" educational reforms (broadly what you describe) were deemed a failure, there were significant advances in nursery education and in the develpoment of elite academies. Maybe a source could confirm this?
Despite these quibbles, the article is generally very absorbing, and instructional for those of us for whom Khruschev is a remote, near forgotten figure. Odd to realise that he was once, and relatively recently, the most powerful individual in the world. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. How the mighty have fallen. I will probably need two or three days to address your various points. It all looks reasonable though. Thanks, looking forward to the remainder.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I have completed my prose review. As before, minor points are listed on the talkpage, but I thouht it worth bringing the following here:-
Space program and US visit, last sentence: Why did De Gaulle have this veto on the summit date?
He apparently just said he wasn't available. Plus, he was designated to host as K had just been to the US and had gone to London in 1956. I guess they could have moved it and done without him but then the West would have looked disunited, and it would not have been possible to seriously discuss Berlin. Fairly typical of de Gaulle.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
U2 and Berlin crisis: "Emboldened by hints from American officials that East Germany had every right to close its borders,..." Can we have a little more information? What American officials, and when and to whom would such hints have been made?
Life in retirement: It would be useful to have some indication as to what 500 rubles per month represented, as an income in the USSR in 1964. Is it possible, by way of a footnote perhaps, to compare this with the average wages of a 1964 USSR manual worker, or white-collar worker, or professional?
That's pretty difficult, because we don't know exactly what he had to pay for. He did not have to pay rent, I'm pretty sure of that, he had a chauffeur and state car (low grade official grade), plus some other labor was apparently provided for him. Of course, they were KGB, but even so. The only reference I can find is an initial concern by Khrushchev that Nina Petrovna might have trouble making ends meet, but there's no further talk about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a truly monumental article, whch I found interesting from start to finish, to the extent that I scarcely noticed its formidable length. I am sure others will find likewise. I intend to leave it for a day, then re-read it when, presumably, my points will have been absorbed (or refuted). I will then update my declaration. Brianboulton (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I have spent considerable time on this article and have seen it improve in the process, from a fairly high base I might add. My various points have been suitably addressed. I have posted one final quibble concerning the WW1 period, but it is very minor, and I look forward to seeing the article's future promotion. A terrific achievement. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support and comment. I notice that many of the images have been culled from the article for justifiable copyright concerns (important). But, I have a problem in understanding how freedom of panorama laws apply, for example to this photograph, which I admit is mine (and would love to see put back in the article so perhpas I have a conflict of interest). The "law" did not apply at the time I took this photograph, and his grave looks completely different today. Also, freedom of panorama is surely only a concern wrt images from the Commons, not those on a local server. I am not convinced that the deletion of the more recent photographs of his grave that were taken by both me and the nominator, at different times, is justified. I think a photograph of his grave would gracefully conclude this now excellent contribution. This aside, well done indeed for bringing one of my favourite articles up to FA standard. I could not have done this. Graham ColmTalk23:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had removed it from the article as I put my own photo of Khrushchev's grave in, which fell to the axe of the A class image review under the freedom of panorama. I had thought only one photo of K's grave needed. I would ask that whoever is doing the image review also review the image GrahamColm has provided (if he misses it, I'll leave a note on his talk page), and if it passes muster I will gladly put it in. Also, if we can get by the freedom of panorama problem on the photos of the monument (perhaps the image reviewer would comment on that too), I'd happily put either mine or GrahamColm's image of the well known grave monument into the article. The image I put in the legacy section of the khrushcheby being destroyed is for sure inferior to the grave image. Thank you for the support and the praise (you sell yourself short, by the way). Khrushchev is quite a character. I have a sneaking admiration for him, sitting staring at the screen next to Stalin, wondering if he would ever have the chance to be #1 ...--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We now have five supports, one oppose which I've commented on why it should not be deemed a barrier to promotion. We still need the image check, and I know it's been requested. Maybe we'll get lucky and have a vodka celebration this weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:May Day Parade 1957 Moscow.jpg - Purpose of "Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the subject of the photo is the subject of the article" is not specific (NFCC#10C) or detailed (WP:FURG vis-a-vis NFCC#10C) and is untrue (this is the Khruschev article, not the May Day or Политбюро article); if it were true, would it not then fail NFCC#1? (The subject, Khrushchev, has a free image.)
Regarding the grave image, I'm not sure I understand where the confusion is. Freedom of panorama is a limitation of a copyright holder's excluive rights to works that are on permanent public display (here, a photograph of Khrushchev). The degree of such limitations, or even their existance in the first place, differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It does not exist in the United States (save an exemption for buildings). The Russian Federation does not limit preclusion of commercial use (i.e. commercial use is disallowed), so Graham's derivative photograph isn't free enough for our purposes. Depending on the degree the grave has changed ("looks completely different today")--i.e. whether the Khrushchev photo has been removed--it might not even be expected to meet the requirement of "permanence". The image of Khruschchev may indeed not have been protected by copyright at the time the photo was taken, however the copyright law of 1993 (No. 5351-1) set forth a term of 50 years p.m.a. that has been determined to be retroactive to previously unprotected works. Эlcobbolatalk16:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Khrushgrave.jpg This shows the grave today; I took it myself in August. It is now entirely different (it is not unusual in that cemetery to have a temporary marker while an artistic permeanent grave monument is being prepared). I have removed the two problematical images and added the pd ineligible tag to the sig image. I won't add Graham's image back into the article without someone's OK, but I think we are now fine on images.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention one thing: File:Nikita_Khrushchev_Signature.svg needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. From what source was it traced? Otherwise images look fine. Unfortunately, the current grave image has the same issue as the 1973 version (i.e. as a derivative, the copyright of the sculpture needs to be considered). Эlcobbolatalk19:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I struck the image. Signatures are pure decoration, in my view. OK, image check done, links and dab check done, 5 supports, 1 oppose which does not reflect the consensus on 1c.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but there are a few more needed: "the harvest of 107.5 million tons of grain was down from a peak of 134.7 million tons in 1958." Check throughout the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article size
Can reviewers please comment on the page size? The readable prose size is currently 85 kB (13743 words), which would make this tied for the 4th longest FA, and is significantly above the WP:SIZE recommendation of 6,000 - 10,000 words. Proper use of summary style is part ofWP:WIAFA (criterion 4), and I want to make sure that this has been adequately examined before closing the FAC. Thanks. Karanacs (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with splitting is that I cannot find a section that justifiably should be split... the guy had a very interesting life, including presiding over one of the most interesting periods of Soviet-American relations. I think that the plethora of events that Krush took part in justifies an article of this length. —Ed(talk • contribs)21:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the above. Khrushchev was the leader of the powerful and vast Soviet Union at a most interesting time. It would be difficult to reduce the length of the article without subsequent complaints on the Talk Page that important events were not adequately covered. It might be just my old and biased view, but it seems to me that the importance of this man to the history of the 20th century is in danger of being forgotten. The article is so well written that it is a joy rather than a chore to read. I say keep it as it is with regard to the length—I think the balance between comprehensiveness and summary style has been well struck. Graham. Graham ColmTalk21:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur as nominator. The bulkiest part of the article is the foreign policy, especially US, and that is also what most people will be looking to read about, and should not be spun off. Khrushchev did a lot of stuff in his life, and this is simply the number of words needed to do justice, in summary style, to his life.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, in this case, that an extraordinary length is justified. Wouldn't want to see it used, however, as a precedent for other world leader articles that may turn up here in the future. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As our longest FA biography (in terms of readable prose), this would set a precedent. Khrushchev is not the only former world leader about whom much has been written, and an acceptance of this length for this article implies that the length will be acceptable about other leaders who have been heavily covered. Karanacs (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well ... what if I were to split off the pre 1949 material into an article, say, Life of Nikita Khrushchev prior to 1949. Because I'm really getting a sense from the delegates that this is an issue for them and I'm not willing to swim upstream. I will say I am not convinced it is an improvement to the article. I can't very well call the article "early life of" by the way, given that he was 55 in 1949.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By having subarticles, you could reduce this article in size while also opening up room for a great deal more content about Khrushchev. A long article is justified, but it's important to have subarticles to facilitate further growth of the content. Everyking (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, creation of spin-off articles is important, but I cannot see how breaking up this would help improve Wikipedia. It says at the top of my page "We’ve created the greatest collection of shared knowledge in history" - dare I say this: although content building is important, more important is quality. Of the millions of articles on Wikipedia, relatively few are anywhere near the standard of this article. To me, the FAC process is not about building content, it is about encouraging high quality contributions. OK, it is a long article, but not so long that it should be denied FA recognition.Graham ColmTalk21:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't commented on the FAC, but happened to see this question posed. As the main editor of a couple of long GA/almost-FA biographies that go over the 10,000 word suggested guideline, I feel that limit is too low for certain kinds of articles, and this here is one of them. It's often better to tell a coherent biographical narrative in one place than to split it up, especially given that page view stats consistently show that readership of biographical subarticles ("Early life of X", etc.) is very, very low, for every subject from Isaac Newton to Sarah Palin. So I think this article size is appropriate. And also, the load time for this article is surprisingly quick, probably because of the citation style used and not having too many navboxes and the like. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I have to agree with Wasted Time R. Although this is a fairly long article, I don't think it should be split up into smaller articles to reduce its length. It loads quickly, it isn't a terribly long read like the German Inner Border FAC was, and quite honestly it's a bloody good article. Keep it as it is! Skinny87 (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am renominating this for featured article because all issues from its previous FAC have been fixed and the article meets all of the FA criteria. Currently a GA and was peer reviewed before first FAC. It has not changed substantially since that FAC as there is little new information to add. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 12:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technical comments
The one image has alt text, which is good. However, "the character Nana Komatsu" should be replaced with a brief description of the character's appearance, as it would not be obvious from seeing only the cover that her name is Nana Komatsu. (She is not fully named, or even called a character from Nana, on the cover; big text on a magazine cover is not always related to the picture behind it, either.)
Support - I went through most or all of the article on the last FAC, and it was good enough. I might not have checked the last couple of sections, so someone may want to look at them a little more closely. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few things, but I otherwise support. Arsonal (talk)
Uncertain, but would it be better to categorize the magazine in the infobox as shōjo manga?
The final sentence in the lead could be broken up a bit to clarify the ones that supported continuation of the imprints. Fans and/or industry experts?
Second to last sentence in the article: "Other participants praised the magazines fashion articles…" → "Other participants praised the magazine's fashion articles…"
Comment I know nothing about this subject. Give me some idea in the first paragraph what you mean by "manga" without me having to jump around to a different article to find out. Also, you refere to colour tones but don't say what colour tones. I want to point out here that colours and tones are two different things. Tone refers to lightness and darkness. If you mean colours, it only takes one word. Amandajm (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Manga is a fairly common word among literary, and is generally not explained in any of the other manga oriented featured articles/lists, nor good articles. It would be akin to explaining what a comic is in comic articles, or what is meant by thriller in saying something is a thriller film. Made color sentence clearer. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 15:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Manga does not need to be defined - certain ideas we have to assume that readers understand. Since the definition of manga is not being disputed in this article and the article is fundamentally about manga, I think we can assume readers will come to the article knowing what manga is. Awadewit (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's what I said at the last FAC: "It would be nice to have a little bit of explanation of the lesser known terms in the lead. Something so people don't have to click on "shōjo manga" and "light novel". We can probably assume that readers (of this article, anyways) know what manga and anime are. Although, if it gets on the main page, they would probably need more or orient them." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The article needs to more clearly describe the contents of the magazine. For example, what kinds of stories were these series? What kinds of themes did they have? What types of plot lines did they typically focus on? If this kind of information is not available in the sources, at least include a brief plot summary in the table so that readers don't have to click on each story to get an idea of what was published in the magazine. Awadewit (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article does clearly describe the contents - shōjo manga titles and several features which are all described. That is the type of stories. There is no central theme among them, they were a variety of titles with no specific focus in plot beyond shojo. And plot summaries do not belong in a magazine article. If people want to know details about each story, they are properly linked. The series are not first run series, they are not original works. The article is about the magazine itself, not the individual manga series which all have their own articles. Manga is a common term. The New York Times even does a manga best seller list. The lead notes that the series was targetted at young women - i.e. what shōjo is. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 15:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing some of your responses with the demand for a definition of manga above (which I agree is unnecessary) and my demand for an expansion of the description of the magazine's contents. Adding a brief description of the plot of the stories in the table will only help the reader - I had to click on each on of these links to see what kinds of stories this magazine published. It was tiring. We can fix this problem by providing just a little bit more information. Awadewit (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think summaries are needed and I think it would set a very bad precedent for other similar magazine articles. Shojo Beat was a short run magazine, but that would still be 15 plot summaries added. Can you imagine what Shonen Jump would look like if summaries were added for every series, or worse Weekly Shonen Jump which has featured hundreds, if not thousands of series? Would adding the genres be a workable compromise? -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 16:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would have preferred more detail on the plots, but in my view this is an acceptable compromise. In my view, the article is comprehensive and well-written. I can't speak to the quality of the sources, as I did not take time to review them all and I don't know much about manga, so I don't know if anything else is available. Awadewit (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on this article for over six years, and in the past year I've been expanding it and referencing it to bring it up to Featured Article standards. Yes, he's another medieval bishop, but amazingly I am not in collusion with Ealdgyth! His bishopness is only incidental to his importance as a chronicler. I haven't been involved in the FAC process recently, but based on reading other nominations, I'm sure I will enjoy the process - I should have the proper knowledge and resources to answer any questions or make any improvements. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's no dabs or broken links, and all images have alt text (I like the map by the way), so it looks good so far. That said, I made two edits to the lead text; give it and the article another skim to make sure there aren't any remaining errors or if you think I fail at error correction. :) --anoddname22:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern with the map is the incongruous use of Sans-Serif and Pseudo-Miniscule, and the different layout of the sans that makes it look like two sans fonts have been used. The map obviously drew my attention immediately, even before I went to look at your footnotes. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I figured someone would comment on the fonts. If there's any doubt about them, it's certainly safer to just use plain old sans-serif (like WP does in text by default, I think) all around. Easier to read, if slightly more boring, that way. --anoddname00:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a deal breaker, it just might be worth improving if you can rustle up support. If I get to keep whinging, Konya is too closely spaced, Euphrates too loosely spaced. Even within the Sans Serif the variations in display are too great. I would humbly suggest that if a Miniscule has to be used, that one with high legibility and visual appeal be used, the one currently in use is of low legibility due to thin sections of characters. (You'll also get a free 1c / 2c review out of me later with a statement on the article's progression) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A new map has been swapped in, specially designed for the article. I have changed all the characters to a sans serif font, and moved, upon Adam's suggestion, the timeframe to 1165. I added a few places mentioned in the article to the map and removed a less relevant ones. Hope this works for you, MapMaster (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, to start with, this is a very well done article. Mostly minor things that cropped up during my read-through, although some may just be questions that I had because of my lack of familiarity with the history:
The prose is exceptional, but I would do a quick read-through to see if it's possible to break up some of the longer sentences into chunks that are more manageable for the reader. For example, the sentence in the lead that starts, "The chronicle was translated into French..."
Given the importance of religion in his life story, I would wikilink Christianity early
"however, he could not have been German as he had little knowledge of that country" I think this conclusion bears a little (and I do mean a little) more explanation, if it's possible based on your sources. Plenty of people have an ancestry they have little knowledge of.
why quote 'apparently well-to-do' instead of converting it into prose?
"The scholaster, or school-master, John the Pisan taught" maybe a better copy-editor can weigh in, but shouldn't there be a comma after 'John the Pisan'?
"married Maria Comnena grand-niece", missing comma?
"was elected archbishop of Tyre to replace Archbishop of Frederick" is the latter a title or a name? should it just be Archbishop Frederick?
is it the Third Council of the Lateran, or the Third Lateran Council - you write it both ways in the article
The sentence that starts, "Peter Edbury and John Rowe" is convoluted and a little unclear
"the final book is unfinished, but it may have been completed and the pages may be lost" - it's incongruent to claim that it may have been completed, but state definitely that it is unfinished
The sentence that starts "William's history can be seen as an apologia," is convoluted as well
"His account of the foundation of the Templars is the earliest description" of?
"are also a typical topos" explain 'topos'
"R. B. C. Huygens notes that..."the French needs translation to English
the last section as a whole strings together a lot of quotes, some of which could perhaps be folded into a regular prose summation
Thanks. Some of those are just missing commas or have leftover words from when I rewrote a sentence (I seem to have done that a lot based on the other comments...). Some of the quotes are there just because I liked them; there is something about the way Huygens says "apparently well-to-do" that amuses me. It is assumed that he wasn't German because whenever there are German crusaders around, he doesn't know anything about them, so he presumably didn't speak German and had no contacts in Germany. The "earliest description" is of the foundation of the Templars...what I mean is, even though people wrote about them before, he is the earliest author to mention their actual foundation, although he wrote it fifty years later. I guess the sentence is backwards currently. I'll clarify all this, thanks! Adam Bishop (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still concerned about that last paragraph. While you've managed to collect a lot of great quotes, it's disconcerting for me as a reader to dig through a long series of them. I would pick one or two to keep as quotes and maybe paraphrase or summarize the rest. Geraldk (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've split up the sentence about the chronicle being an apologia, but could you be more specific? What else is convoluted about it? (Is talking about an apologia too jargon-y?) I'll see what I can do about the last paragraph; what does everyone else think? Too many quotes? (I like them, anyway.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like, we can wait until another reviewer weighs in on that, I don't feel that strongly about it. So I'm set for now, but will wait to support until source and image checks are complete. Geraldk (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alt text done; thanks.Alt text is present (thanks) but it needs some work.
Much of it repeats the captions, but alt text should discuss only the part of the the visual appearance of the image that the caption omits; please see WP:ALT#Repetition. Also, alt text normally should not contain any details that cannot be verified by a nonexpert who is looking only at the images; see WP:ALT#Verifiability. Problematic phrases that should be removed or moved to the caption, on repetition or verifiability grounds, include "from an Old French manuscript", "William of Tyre's chronicle", "showing William", "his history", "the future Baldwin IV", "not being hurt", "a sign of leprosy", "Saladin", "end of chapter heading", "text of chapter", "Godfrey of Bouillon in the Hofkirche of Innsbruck. It was mainly on William's authority that Godfrey became the hero of the First Crusade."
The alt text for the map doesn't convey to a visually impaired reader what the gist of the map is, namely the geographical locations and relationships among those regions. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance here.
Please try to pretend that you're briefly describing the image over the telephone to a non-expert.
Oh, I completely misunderstood the point of alt text, sorry. (I didn't even know there was such a concept until the Peer Review!) Is it better now? Would it help if I cropped that image of Saladin burning the town? The text in the image is irrelevant (the others would have it too but they have been cropped differently). Adam Bishop (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's great now; thanks! There's no need to crop the text from that image from an alt text point of view; if you do crop it for other reasons, please adjust the alt text accordingly. Eubulides (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1c: Inadequate indication of when commentary chapters are being used from definitive translations versus when the translation is being quoted. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2c: Inconsistent. p / pp style versus pg style. 21:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Multiple works in single footnotes which contain the first citation of unbibliographied works. Inadequate bibliography for a historical article (all works go in). The multiple citation styles make me want to go plagiarism hunting, btw. 21:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC) And I am not impressed that a history article was brought forward with multiple citation styles in the document, 2c as a criterion is pretty clear. Extensive footnotes which should either be incorporated into the article, or culled. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that my citation style is never perfect (this is a problem in real life as well, actually), but what would you suggest? How should I indicate "commentary chapters"? The Babcock and Krey translation has their own introduction (which I have noted, at least sometimes - I added one that I missed when I was editing just now), and then William's prologue. The Huygens edition also has his own introduction. How can I distinguish these more clearly? I did not think I was using "multiple styles", but perhaps this comes from other editors. Also, I've tolerated a good load of bullshit on Wikipedia over the years, but accusations of plagiarism are a little much. It will help, I'm sure, if you actually tell me which notes you have problems with. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Introductions should be cited as such, Author author (year) Introduction to William Tyre Work Provenance data, in the current style you're using. Works themselves should be cited William Tyre Work trans. Foo and foo. If the manuscript and translation have different titles, the published title should be used.When the article switches, seemlessly, between Foo Work pg. 40 and Foo Work p. 40 it becomes rather obvious two authors have been involved, and that the citations haven't been checked before the FAC. 21:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is it now? I've tried to make it more clear. I don't see the problem with the way I cited things, to be honest. I've also cleaned up the references, so everything I cited in the text is now included. Would you prefer a "notes" section for what you have called "extended footnotes", where I have explained something that I didn't think fit into the text? I don't think it would be useful to cull that information. For "p." vs. "pg.", as far as I can tell there are no instances of "p." so I don't know what you're referring to. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rechecked, you're consistently using pg. for singles... its not a style I've seen, but you're consistent, and that's all that's demanded. Your chapter citations are still out, see "Dictionary of the Middle Ages (ed. Joseph Strayer; article "William of Tyre" by Susan M. Babbitt (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1989), vol. 12, pg. 643)" which is actually "Susan M. Babbitt, "William of Tyre," Dictionary of the Middle Ages ed. Joseph Strayer New York: Charles Scribners's Sons, 1989, vol. 12, pg. 643." (Compare to your citations of articles, or R. C. Schwinges in Tolerance and Intolerance.
Latin, or English? You use a mix of pg. for singular, and pp. for plural. pp. is the plural of p. not of pg. The plural of pg. is pgs. (See OED 2 P, (n) 10a.). Pick one of:
pg. for singular pgs. for plural.
p. for singular pp. for plural. (Wikipedia's templates follow this style).
That's a good point. For some reason in high school I learned to use "pg." and I have stubbornly stuck with it ever since, even after learning the plural "pp." later. I've changed it to "p." Adam Bishop (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support. Good article. My specific concerns have been addressed. But there are still a lot of over-long sentences, and a few poorly-constructed ones.:* William is praised by current scholars in the section "modern Assesssment" as "one of the greatest medieval writers", "the greatest crusade historian" and "one of the finest historians of the Middle Ages". Isn't this a key element of his notability? And shouldn't mention of this therefore be prominent in the Lead?
"known as William II to distinguish him from William of Malines, the first Archbishop of Tyre by that name" - Shouldn't this be "of that name"?
"He grew up in Jerusalem at the height of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which was established in 1099 after the First Crusade, and spent twenty years studying the liberal arts and canon law in the universities of Europe." - Did the Kingdom of Jerusalem study liberal arts and canon law? Sentence should be broken after "Crusade", and then continue with "Then he spent..."
"In 1179 William led the eastern delegation to the Third Council of the Lateran, but as he was involved in the dynastic struggle that developed during Baldwin IV's reign, his importance waned when a rival faction gained control of royal affairs." - The causality between the first and second parts of this sentence is not very clear. Why not break it after "lateran"? Then the next sentence could be reframed: "However his importance waned after he became involved in a dynastic struggle that developed during Baldwin IV's reign, and a rival faction gained control of royal affairs."
"Baldwin II, expanded and secured the kingdom's borders so that the kingdom was roughly contiguous with modern Israel and Lebanon." - It wasn't Baldwin's intention to emulate the borders of modern day Israel and Lebanon. Why not replace "so that" with "until" or something similar?
"During the first few decades of the kingdom's existence, the population swelled with pilgrims who could now safely visit the holiest sites of Christendom, and with merchants from the Mediterranean city-states of Italy and France who were eager to exploit the rich trade markets of the east" - "was swelled by" would be better than "swelled with". Again can you cut the sentence in two after "Christendom"? Then the next sentence could be: "Merchants from the Mediterranean city-states of Italy and France were also eager to exploit the rich trade markets of the east."
"He was born in Jerusalem around 1130, to parents who were probably among the French or Italian merchants who had settled in the kingdom and who were "apparently well-to-do", although it is unknown whether they participated in the First Crusade or arrived later. " - Suggest a sentence split after "1130". Then start "His parents..."
"He studied liberal arts and theology in Paris and Orleans for about ten years, with professors who had been students of Thierry of Chartres and Gilbert de la Porrée; he also spent time studying under Robert of Melun and Adam de Parvo Ponte, among others. He also studied the classics with Hilary of Orleans, and mathematics ("especially Euclid") with William of Soissons. For six years, he studied theology with Peter Lombard and Maurice de Sully. Afterwards, he studied civil law and canon law in Bologna, with the "Four Doctors", Hugolinus de Porta Ravennate, Bulgarus, Martinus Gosia, and Jacob de Boraigne." - Very long, confusing list. Could be improved by starting: "For about ten years he studied liberal arts and theology in Paris and Orleans, with professors who had been students of Thierry of Chartres and Gilbert de la Porrée." Then a new sentence.
"William's list "gives us almost a 'Who's Who' of the grammarians, philosophers, theologians and law teachers of the so-called Twelfth-Century Renaissance", and shows that he was as well-educated as any European cleric, such as his contemporary John of Salisbury, who had many of the same teachers." - Not grammatical. Sentence could be split after "European cleric." Then "His contemporary, John of Salisbury, had many of the same teachers."
"After his return to the Holy Land in 1165 he was well-suited to rise through the ranks" - "well-fitted" might be better.
"The subsequent events have often been interpreted as a struggle between two opposing factions, the "court party", made up of Baldwin's mother, Amalric's first wife Agnes of Courtenay, her immediate family, and recent arrivals from Europe who were inexperienced in the affairs of the kingdom and who were in favour of war with Saladin; and the "noble party", led by Raymond III of Tripoli and the native nobility of the kingdom, who favoured peaceful co-existence with the Muslims." - Sentence too long and confusing.
Suggested alternative: "Subsequent events have often been portrayed as a struggle between two opposing factions. These were the "court party", made up of Baldwin's mother, Amalric's first wife Agnes of Courtenay, her immediate family, and recent arrivals from Europe, who were inexperienced in the affairs of the kingdom and were in favour of war with Saladin; and the "noble party", led by Raymond III of Tripoli and the native nobility of the kingdom, who favoured peaceful co-existence with the Muslims."
Ah, I am fond of long sentences. I see that some of them were needlessly confusing though. I fixed most of that, so it should be more to your liking. The only one I had a problem with was "so that". It doesn't necessarily imply intent, it can just be a simple result of the main clause. (I don't like "until" as a replacement, but maybe there is something better than both "so that" and "until".) Adam Bishop (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the "swelled by" comment. I've changed that, and the bit about the borders. Does "which encompassed roughly the same territory" work? I also added Palestine, just to be fair. Also "by that name" sounds more correct to me than "of that name". I initially changed it but it just didn't seem right. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was unsourced because it's in the lead, heh. Huygens and Edbury/Rowe are my sources for his abilities as a Latinist but perhaps they do not say "flawless". I'm not quite sure what you would like me to say, but I've changed it to "excellent", compared to other medieval authors. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have two problems with the lead:
It implies that William wrote the Latin of Cicero, Petrarch, or Erasmus - which he plainly did not.
He's not the Cicero of the crusades, I don't mean to imply that. The point is just that he's really good for a medieval author. There are certainly other authors of the same period, or a bit earlier or later, who are also very good, or better than William (Bernard of Clairvaux is much better, the Gesta Francorum is much worse, etc etc). But where else would he have learned to write like that? There was no university in Jerusalem. Of course he had to go to Europe. (Even Gildersleeve studied in Europe!) I can probably expand on this, I have a few ideas of where to look. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Gildersleeve's students didn't have to study in Europe (some of them did, but not all); they had Gildersleeve. Now it may be that no competent Latinist went on Crusade (if so, it would be fascinating); but yes or no, let's have a source. Good luck. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The implications of this line of thought are that William could have written a thousand-page Latin chronicle with just the Latin he learned as a youth, or that he could have gotten a university-level education in a place where there were no universities. But maybe this would not be obvious to the average reader. Sources to come. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I thought I would find something in the articles about William as a student by Huygens and Mayer. I am looking for something that specifically says there is no university in Jerusalem so higher education had to be undertaken in Europe, but the best I can find is in Tyerman's "God's War", "the kingdom of Jerusalem...sent its best and brightest students to the west for education, such as William of Tyre." (pg. 218) Is that an appropriate statement and source? I will also look for something that specifically says William must have learned his advanced Latin in Europe, which is what I think you want; maybe the intro to Huygens' edition will have that. (This is harder than I thought, I guess it's more of a logical assumption than something that is ever stated plainly.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I wrote a whole essay about William's education once, and I still have no specific refs for the lack of a university in Jerusalem. I did find a good one from Charles Homer Haskin's "Renaissance of the Twelfth Century" though, which talks about Orleans as a centre of classical study. Does that help? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of Adam's responses here are effectively that grammar and rhetoric are university-level work (and presumably the distinction between accusative and ablative transcends the usual course of study). That's not true now; it was even less true in Gildersleeve's time - were medieval universities really that bad? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson21:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But that can apply to almost any subject. I learned math at school, but am I a mathematician? Of course not. I've studied and taught Latin at university, but can I write a book in Latin? Can you? (With enormous amounts of effort I can perhaps write a few pages.) Obviously that level of composition requires more than simple grammar homework. Sometimes he uses "in" with an ablative when there is movement involved and he should have used an accusative; sometimes he uses nominatives or accusatives where we would expect an ablative absolute; Huygens talks about some of his other quirks. Maybe Cicero doesn't write Latin like that, but not only was Cicero a native speaker, he is also artificially the standard for all Latin grammar. How convenient for him! But Plautus, Caesar, Seneca, and Tacitus didn't write like him either, so why is it so surprising that a medieval author is also different? Hopefully you approve of the clarifications I have made, but if not, I don't think you're arguing against what I have written, but what the sources are saying, and there's not really anything I can do about that. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a tweak myself, which may solve the implicit comparison with Cicero - or Erasmus, who was also writing a foreign tongue; for the other half, supply a source for the superiority of his European education, and I am answered. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson23:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"for his time" is perfectly fine with me. I guess we wasted a lot of typing for nothing :) Erasmus (or Petrarch, or Boccaccio) is a little different, I'm sure everyone would agree that humanists are better than medieval writers. For the superiority of his European education, haven't I provided sources for that in my last few edits? What else can I say? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must be thinking too narrowly. You would like a source that talks about medieval universities in general, not something about Jerusalem or William, right? (That is, the problem is that there is not enough historical context for the non-specialist reader?) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're not thinking as narrowly as I was. But I've ventured another tweak: if his education weren't already in the lead, I would have written William had a European education; his chronicle is written in excellent Latin for his time and let the readers make their own conclusions. But the first clause is redundant, so I left it out. As far as I am concerned, this quibble is settled. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson04:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the next sentence it is the only source for the history of Jerusalem at that time written by a lifelong resident I think this is intended to mean that there is no other source which was written by a native of Jerusalem; but it is very easy to read this as the double claim There is no other source for the history of Jerusalem at that timeandit was written by a lifelong resident. Recast? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson23:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:William of tyre.jpg - Please add a source and author to the image description page for this image.
File:BNF, Mss fr 68, folio 359.jpg - Please add an English translation of the image information to the image description page. Also, please fix the source link.
Are they okay now? The source link for the second image is currently down, either because Gallica has reorganized its site or because the actual manuscripts in France have been moved (as apparently they have been). If we can't find the link again I guess we could just delink it. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to PMAnderson - Ealdgyth missed the above because she's not a grammarian or a linguist, and my eyes glaze over when articles start discussing wording and language choices (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk15:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -- I read the article over. An interesting read. You certainly like the perfect tense Adam! Anyway, couldn't get hold of any of the principal works on the topic, so am unable to offer substantial content points. But I'll leave the following comments for now:
Go over the article and make all the "Xth Century" consistent. I noticed the form in "twelfth century" is the one that is predominant, but "13th century" and "fourteenth-century" are there too.
The article used the word "also" far too much. I cut many of these out in my c/e
William's origins have been variously claimed as English, French, German, or Italian; however, he rarely mentions Germany or German affairs, and does not know the names of many German crusaders, so he probably had no connection to that country.
I think a footnote elaborating this is necessary. I.e. a note describing who, with refs, has claimed what. The debunking of the German claim is likewise unreferenced (or at least, it is not clear where the information is drawn from). Incidentally, surely a guy with the name "William" and a brother called Radulf would likely be [agnatically] French, rather than Italian?
Amalric died prematurely
I know what is meant, but that phrase never makes sense out of context. ;) I got rid of the "prematurely".
Miles of Plancy briefly held the regency for the underaged Baldwin IV, until his assassination in October of 1174; Raymond III was soon appointed to replace him.
Who was assassinated? And who replaced whom? Needs to be rewritten for clarity.
Can't this chronicle have an article of its own, and be referred to in the text? It's not very common for chronicles of this era to have "authentic" names known to modern historians, and many if not most are purely conventional. It would read better with something like Historia Rerum than "the chronicle".
The first half of the articles sorta swings in and out of biographical material, and it isn't always obvious why KoJ stuff is mentioned. I think a lot of the contextualography could go, but having said that it read well going enough, and cutting it out might sacrifice informativeness for the unworthy sake of being concise.
Thanks Deacon, I will make some more clarifications. The centuries with the hyphens are always the adjectival form, or at least that is my intention ("in the twelfth century" vs. "a twelfth-century author"). I did have a lengthier note about who claimed he was English and German but I either cut it out or never inserted it into the article. I thought it might be distracting...in fact it might be distracting the way it is, perhaps I should just say he was French or Italian and leave it at that. And yeah, everyone generally assumes French anyway, not just from the names, but also because Italy is mentioned as "beyond the Alps". The chronicle could have its own article, as it does in Italian and Latin, and the Old French continuations could have their own article as well, but no one has gotten around to them yet. I'm not sure what to call it within the article, sometimes academic literature uses "Historia", sometimes "Chronicon", and sometimes the way it is here. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Excellent writing/punctuation/grammar. Even the sentences on steroids (such as "William gave a more nuanced... ") generally did not distract me from the narrative.
"His education and ability..." Two sentence "paragraph".
I'm a little unhappy about the citation format. I know that we only require consistency, but that's a lowball standard. I've never seen this firstname-first style; I think it's a disservice to readers to buck the lastname-first system that is, as far as I know, consistent across all major citation styles.
Can you explain three cites to "Babcock and Krey" vs. five to "William of Tyre, trans. Babcock and Krey" vs. a lone cite to "Emily Atwater Babcock and August C. Krey"... all in the notes. OK, so... the full cite is given in the first instance; abbreviated cites later. Even if I accept that (which is problematic, since the full cite is given in the Sources section, so why redundantly repeat it redundantly?), the other two are inconsistent.
IIRC I demanded the article differentiate between Babcock and Krey's commentary, versus the actual text by Tyre which they merely translate. One's the scholarly introduction, the other's the MS text as assembled and translated. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"after the disastrous Second Crusade in 1148, when the crusader armies were defeated at Damascus, Muslim territory to the east of Jerusalem had fallen under the control of the powerful sultan Nur ad-Din" Wasn't it 1154 when Nur ad-Din took control of Damascus? The sentence makes it seem as if that happened immediately after the siege in 1148. Moreover, isn't Egypt southwest, not west, of Jerusalem?
" Amalric had come to power in 1164..." This sentence is a bit disjointed. Suggest: " Amalric had come to power in 1164, and had made it his goal to expand the Kingdom of Jerusalem to the southwest by conquering Egypt. Muslim territory to the east of Jerusalem had fallen under the control of the powerful sultan Nur ad-Din after the disastrous Second Crusade in 1148, when the crusader armies were defeated at Damascus. However, the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt was a far weaker opponent."
"was often taken for granted in the past." Can we get something a bit more concrete? What general time period (a certain decade, forex?) did opinions begin to change?
"possessive pronoun (s;" Is that supposed to be pronoun(s)? In other words, what's that (s supposed to indicate?
While we're here, that whole linguistic section is a bit undercited. Is it all from Huygens? Three or four words to that effect would be good; just add them to the current note. But... the bit about the calque stands out. Should it be cited separately?
(Sorry Ling.Nut, I accidentally deleted your comments, I must have edited an older version of the page). Do you mean the citations for the sources at the end? That's true, last name should be first there. The footnote format is as Fifelfoo says. The cites for "Babcock and Krey" are for their introduction to the translation (they do say "introduction" in there somewhere), and the others are William, as translated by them. A full citation is given first, then abbreviated, then a full cite again in the bibliography, because, well, isn't that how it's supposed to be done? Yes, Nur ad-Din took control of Damascus in 1154, but it was sort of his protectorate more directly after the Second Crusade; in any case, yeah, "after" is a little ambiguous there. Egypt is southwest, and for that matter Damascus is northwest. The "(s" is part of an explanatory addition that I changed my mind about and apparently incompletely deleted, heh. The linguistic stuff is all from Huygens, yes. I'll work on this and Deacon's notes when I get a chance. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I support First-name first alphabetization; it makes linking easier, and the only reason for last-name first is to make checking alphabetization easier for semi-literate support staff - which we don't have. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson17:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does, but making a piped link is not difficult. And if we want to adopt other stylistic norms like "p." and "pp." why not last-name-first? (I don't care about that so much, I actually wish we could have hanging justification for bibliographies, it's easier to read that way.) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, plus comments. This is an honor system support; I'm sure you'll go ahead and clear up that small pesky patch of disjointed prose and other minor blemishes. I won't (cannot!) oppose because of the citation format. But linking is no more difficult one way or the other, since it can be done via piped links (as mentioned above):[[Steve Smith|Smith, Steve]].. The present system makes it darn awful inconvenient for me to check for alpha sorting when there's a given name in the way... [Note to self: Create "Semi-Literate Support Staff Barnstar"; award first one to self.] My eyesight is starting to fade a bit, so the less squinting the better. Lastname first also makes it a widdle bit easier for the audience to locate a ref in a long ref list, if theyare interested in doing so. Finally, as I said before, why not go along with ... you know ... everyone else in the whole wide world on this matter?? But this matter is no matter. Rules is rules. The system is consistent, and the article is admirably thorough and well-cited and well-written and so on. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, it'd still be good to be referring to "the chronicle" by one name, esp. if this goes on the front page. Make an editorial judgment as a historian of the topic (looks like "Historia rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum" is the preferable title, but hard to tell in the absence of a widely available edition bearing a Latin title [e.g. Libellus de Exordio). But this is not an FA/non FA matter. I'll register my support for this. Good to get a historian on board the FA train. BTW, you need to [get someone to] fix the dashes, as the article is using hyphens where n-dashes are required, and so on. Surprised no-one's got on to that already! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ealdgyth! Deacon, for the title, the conventional shorthand for Huygen's edition in crusader studies is just "WT", so that's not too helpful. Edbury and Rowe call it "the Historia" and I think I've seen that elsewhere as well. Since the English translation also uses "History" I think we can legitimately call it "the Historia". Adam Bishop (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Historia as a short-hand isn't perfect for the article, as one of the titles among his lost works begins with the same word. Historia Rerum +/- Gestarum maybe. Do you plan on making a stub for the chronicle? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I don't think there would be any confusion with a lost work which is only mentioned once (and obviously we can't be referring to any edition of it). "Historia rerum gestarum" doesn't sound right to me, and I don't think it is ever referred to that way. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I left out the assumed title of the "history of the eastern princes", which leaves us free to use "Historia" for the surviving chronicle. I don't know if I'll make an article for the chronicle. There is more to say about it but I don't think I have the time to do a good job on it (same for the Old French translation). Adam Bishop (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I not very fussy about capitalization, but: "Raymond named William chancellor of Jerusalem, as well as archdeacon of Nazareth, and on June 6, 1175, William was elected Archbishop of Tyre to replace...among the others was Heraclius, Archbishop of Caesarea, Joscius, bishop of Acre and William's future successor in Tyre, the bishops of Sebastea, Bethlehem, Tripoli, and Jabala, and the abbot of Mount Sion." can't all be right. I've changed "was" to "were". Also "On his return from Rome in 1170 he may have been commissioned by Amalric to begin writing a history of the Kingdom" higher up.
"His writing also shows phrasing and spelling which is peculiar to purely classical Latin but not uncommon in medieval Latin, such as:..." - "peculiar to" means "only found in"; presumably what is meant here is "sound peculiar in". I am surprised PMA missed this :)
We have a precise link for Maximilian II's tomb at Innsbruck (the picture) but I can't be bothered to find it. It won't take you long. Is Godfrey of Bouillon linked above? He should be linked in the caption too. - These now done. "It was mainly on William's authority that Godfrey became the hero of the First Crusade" appears only in the caption & needs a cite.
"emphasis on the miraculous intervention of God in human affairs" - "miraculous" is the wrong word here; maybe just cut it.
"probably more knowledgeable of Byzantine affairs" awkward in UK English; maybe ok in US?
I found a number of missing words etc which I have corrected, but the prose could do with a careful run-through.
Of the six articles about Premiers of Alberta I've brought here, this is the shortest, which is kind of strange since he's the longest-lived. But he was also the shortest-serving, so it all balanced out. Or something. Anyway, it's been through a good article review and a couple of peer reviews from User:Nikkimaria and User:Resolute. I look forward to reviewers' explanations of why it's still not good enough and I am human garbage. Steve Smith (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright review (OpposeSupport on criterion 3):
File:Richard Reid.jpg needs something to indicate that it meets US and Canadian copyright. Specifically, it needs either an author or a date of publication, or more preferably both. It also needs a more appropriate source, such as a deeplink.
You are incorrect on the first point: photographs taken in Canada prior to January 1, 1949 are in the public domain irrespective of their author or publication status. Those taken before January 1, 1946 are also public domain in the United States, by virtue of being in the public domain in the country of origin as of January 1, 1996. I'll sort the sources, though the first three are scanned from offline sources (I'll identify that source on the description page, I just want to warn you that there won't be a link). Steve Smith (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scanned from offline sources is fine, but if it is from a book, page numbers do have to be given and it has to be formatted appropriately. In addition, File:Richard Reid.jpg has no date, so there is no way for someone to know that it indeed fits PD-Canada. NW(Talk)02:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just addressed those issues on the Commons now. I couldn't figure out how to get deep links to the Glenbow images, because I'm a Luddite, so I linked to the search page and included the archival number on the page. If you can figure out how to link straight to the images, I'd be much obliged. File:Richard Reid.jpg does have a date in the book, which I've put on the description page; I was being sloppy while uploading it. Steve Smith (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - One of the best written pieces i have reviewed. Very high standard of prose, and good research. My only query is: the article twice refers to the "Great Depression", then three times refers to "the depression" (lower case). Is there a case for revision here for consistency? The one place where the lower case language jars is in the final para: "like many governments across Canada, his was defeated by the depression". This appears to be a very clear reference to the Great Depression rather than to depressed economic conditions in general. I will leave it to the article's main editor to judge. Good work. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)OK, I worked through them myself. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. I'm terrible at this sort of stylistic nitpick, so I'll just leave it as is with an invitation to any editor confident in his/her mastery of the MOS to adjust it (or tell me how to do so). Steve Smith (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the nature of this video game, there's actually a lot of good development information that is probably of interest to both gamers and audiophiles - and those that just love the Beatles. Because of this, this article has gain more attention than a usual VG article, and we have had constant copy-editing throughout the game. I will note that there is one piece of information that will be added in the next few days (Sept. sales numbers, though they are hinted at by analysts as sourced) but I do not expect this to be an issue with the nomination. MASEM (t) 22:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed while doing some ref fixes that you've got some dead links. The external link checker shows seven right off the bat. Pagrashtak02:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm left with two I'm unable to resolve. The Game Informer one is likely due to the fact they have recently reorganized their website, so older content may not (yet) be available. The GameCulture blog one, unfortunately, has very limited and/or broken archives, so I cannot see that page. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither are at archive.org. I can pull the google cache version of the GAmeCulture one, but barring checking my print version of the magazine, I don't see a cahce of the Game Informer one. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated I've confirmed that the GameInformer websource only repeated details from other existing articles, so I've replaced that. I've also found that GameCulture has a facebook presence and that post is posted there, and thus replaced the broken link. --MASEM (t) 04:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a comment: the source of data I was waiting for above arrived in a timely manner (sales figures from NPD) so that portion is no longer "incomplete". --MASEM (t) 00:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The opening cinematic is a very different art style, and is actually not used directly in gameplay, so I don't believe it to be duplicating the existing shots. The stage picture I can see as somewhat non-essential, to some extent, but compared with the one gameplay picture that is not a dreamscape, which is one at the Budoken, it's very different to see that set, and thus the Ed Sullivan stage picture is used to highlight the detail they've put into recreating one of the more iconic appearances of the Beatles. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Current ref 3 (Beatles Rock Band official site) lacks a publisher
Current ref 8 (Albanesius...) lacks a publisher
Current ref 16 (Rock Band compatability...) lacks publisher and last access date.
Current ref 23 (Courtin...) lacks a last access date
Nearly all of the Kotaku/Joystiq articles are from regular contributors to the site, and include interviews given to those sites. Kotaku has recently gained video game journalist Stephan Tolito as a managing editor. One Joystiq ref actually was replaced as it sites a more reliable source.
Crispy Gamer includes staff that do have some reliability in the VG area, in this case, the author, Kyle Orland, also does VG coverage for NPR among other places.
Totalvideogames.com appears to be under an editorial board, but in this case, it is an interview with a developer so reliability is coming from that.
Offworld is an offshoot of Boing Boing, its primary contributor (and author here), Brandon Boyer, is an editor for Gamasutra and other places.
Cartoon Brew is run by Jerry Beck, an animation historian /expert.
The Lawyer is a trade publication in the UK about the legal industry there.
IndustryGamers is managed on James Brighton, editor for Game Daily (the same company that owns Joystiq among other sites), which itself is owned by AOL.
ESDMusic seems to be one blog of a series of diverse blogs out of a network, and though I wouldn't call absolutely reliable, is just an interview with Dhani, so take as it should be.
The Gamervision site, I'm not sure about, and the fact in that article, that the song is not a exclusive to the 360, is yet to be backed up by any other source, so I've removed that statement until such proven differently.
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. You've done a bit of this, but some evidence that the various authors, etc are experts would be helpful. Also, just because something is an interview doesn't make it reliable, it needs to be shown that the interviewer/site are reliable interview sites. Ealdgyth - Talk18:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further, just because something is a sister publication of another reliable source, it doesn't necessarily mean that the other site is reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk18:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I'll check them in a moment.Ealdgyth - Talk18:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I've moved what I changed out of there.
In any case, of what is left that I cannot outright replace:
Crispy Gamer, as a site, does not show direct signs of an editor-in-chief or the like. But I am pointing to the author of the articles listed there, Kyle Orland, who, as I've noted, has extensive history in the field in reliable sources before and would be considered an expert for this field per the Signpost suggestion. CrispyGamer does have this concept of a "GameTrust" between its editors presuming they review each others content but I cannot find a link to confirm that.
The totalvideogames.com is difficult to assess editorial standards. Unfortunately, the statement made via an interview is irreplacible as it was based on an interview, and seems to be the only place where Drake has said something like "The entire catalogue might be stretching it a bit.". However, I did find that other reliable sources point to that interview, such as the Wired source I've added. All the other facts of the interview are consistent with other interviews/articles from reliable sources.
Offworld and Cartoon Brew, I've pointed out the expertise of their editors. However, what is important here is that these articles are either asserting a non-controversial fact that can be gained from watching said video, or providing their expert opinion about it. In light of the latter aspects, these are irreplaceable, and the only thing I can do is assure that these are experts whose opinions matter about the video.
GameSetWatch, as noted, is a sister publication of Gamasutra, itself the online arm of Game Developer magazine. The content on GSW is, but not always, new content that gets bubbled up to Gamasutra, or is republished from previous Gamasutra articles. Both editors [18] are key to editing of the print and web side of the articles. But also to point out again, all they are doing here is providing what I would consider non-controversial statements (where the art for the game came from with examples) backed up by Brandon Boyer from Boing Boing/Offworld. I can't prove those reliable any more than that.
The esdmusic, which I replaced with a more complete interview from the "parent" site, Bullz-eye.com - well, I can't find editoral information for either. As it is an interview, and like the above one in totalvideogames, has a statement that only appears there, maybe borrowed in other publications, but irreplaceable. I can attest that all other statements made by Dhani in the interview agree with other sources from reliable works, so I don't believe it to be a falsification. But there's little else I can do about this one.
I've explained the source of the GameCulture one before, but it's important to note that this, like the Offworld and Cartoon Brew articles, are only be used to express expert opinion and not state fact. (See [19] for google cache version).
Just a noted as per below, I've taken out the totalvideogames.com and bullz-eye.com refs and the statements only supported by them. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On sources
GameSetWatch has been demonstrated reliable enough for me, and Offworld, Crispy Gamer, and Cartoon Brew at the least meet WP:SPS. However I'm not sure that esdmusic/bullzeye or totalvideogames meets any kind of standard. As much as I wish we could just get away with "it's an interview", we simply have no way of confirming the interviews are legit and that they haven't somehow modified the content. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)13:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I look at the those two sources, there are only two statements that they support not already supported by other statements, both being about what other songs the game may get - the last paragraph of "Downloadable content". The article does not hinge on these facts, nor that section, but it does help assert the breadth of the songs that may appear in the game. So technically, the above two sources could be removed along with some of these lines, the question is if that harms that para. (And I've looked for sources to replace those facts, but the only one I come up with is the Joystiq interview). --MASEM (t) 14:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend you just remove them. If it can't be cited to something else, that's a pity, but I just can't see how those meet the "high quality" requirements of the FA criteria. I'll try and sit down and review the whole article later today. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)15:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As promised... it looks pretty good, but some issues:
There need to be nonbreaking spaces between units (I added one, for example to the lead).
I think I got these all.
Why are there citations in the lead? There are no quotations.
There is actually one quote, but all others I've removed/moved.
Similarly, why are only some things cited in the infobox, and not others? (Why one platform, and not the other, for example?)
Removed.
I spotted some occasions where the tense was still indicative that the game had not yet come out. I'd also say its better to describe its reception as having occurred as well.
I will review again for tense issues, but I didn't seem many outside the ones you found.
"The game allows players..." better to restate the game's title, considering this is the start of the body.
Fixed
"The game interface is stylistically unique to The Beatles: Rock Band to reflect the band's era" reword to the simpler "The Beatles: Rock Band's game interface is stylistically unique..."
Fixed
"Some alterations to the Rock Band formula were made to preserve the sanctity of The Beatles' music." Okay, I'm probably the biggest Beatles fan of my age group, but even I would stop before calling The Beatles' music holy.
Changed to "sound"
"Four new instrument peripherals modeled after those used by The Beatles members have been introduced alongside the game." Same thing about the tense.
Fixed.
"The Rickenbacker and Gretsch guitar peripherals are sold separately." source?
repeat of previous source, but added
"Each song contains a "lead" and "bass" guitar track, and each are playable regardless of the type of guitar controller used by the player." source?
This para was added by someone, I don't know, but it is awkward and unnecessary. and thus removed.
Last two paragraphs of "#Instrument peripherals" aren't long enough to be real paragraphs. Merge or flesh out.
The last para was removed, rest merged.
"As in previous Rock Band games, players can play any song in the game either cooperatively through "Quickplay", or competitively in "Tug of War" and "Score Duel" modes." Care to explain those modes for us newbs?
Added and sourced
"For example, Ringo Starr was estranged from the rest of the band during periods of recording for The Beatles (commonly referred to as The White Album). Thus, he did not perform on certain songs, such as "Back in the U.S.S.R."." would be nice to have a source for those not familiar with Beatles history.
Added
"In addition to Apple Corps' material, Harmonix designers watched the eight-part The Beatles Anthology on a weekly basis for further reference on the band. These materials were meticulously reviewed to replicate the outfits that The Beatles wore for each of their concerts, as well as the instruments they used for recordings and live performances." source?
Repeat of NYTimes source, added
"The game was formally showcased on 1 June 2009 at E3 2009. Presented by Harmonix at the beginning of the Microsoft press conference, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr briefly took the stage to discuss the games.[51] Yoko Ono and Olivia Harrison, widows of the late John Lennon and George Harrison respectively, also made a brief appearance. The game's E3 demo booth was modeled as a recreation of Abbey Road Studios.[52]" There's a hell of a lot of redundant linking in that paragraph, and that might be an issue elsewhere, this is just where it caught my eye (also, you mention that Ono and Harrison are the widows earlier, so that can be cut.)
I will review for overlinking, but this is the only major place on a first read I caught
"As of August 2009, VH1 Classic has been airing music videos from the TV special Around The Beatles (1964), Help! (1965), and a music video of the "Birthday" gameplay footage, promoting the launch of The Beatles Rock Band online store." more tense issues!
Fixed
"On 8 September 2009, Dhani Harrison appeared as a guest on The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien to promote the game. Harrison and O'Brien (along with Tonight Show web manager Aaron Bleyaert and The Tonight Show Band member Mark Pender) performed the song "Birthday" at the close of the show.[58]" Another non-paragraph.
I'll do another readthrough and watch the tenses and linkage, but I believe I've gotten all the above dealt with. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's really no question about the images. They abide by the letter of our policy and, most crucially, its spirit. They clearly contribute to a deeply informed understanding of the game and its design, and there is no conceivable way in which they are displacing free content, actual or potential. Of course, it's always helpful to reacquaint oneself with our policy. "Necessary", for instance, is not a sensible standard--and that's why it does not appear in our policy. Are these images judiciously chosen? Yes, quite. Do they significantly increase understanding of the topic? Indubitably. Is there any free equivalent, here, there, anywhere? Nyet. Job well done, Masem. DocKino (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support The article reads great, and Masem and company have done a great job cleaning up what needs updating for the FAC. I agree with David Fuchs on the amount images in the article. I think removing the image RockBandBeatlesPAX.jpg would be enough, as the McCartney/Starr image is more than enough to cover the Promotion section, and there's nothing particularly of note about the PAX image in comparison. There are also a handful of redlinks in the reference section that need cleaned up. --Teancum (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first, its a free image, so it's not a non-free issue. But in this case, I think the image helps to demonstrate the types of promotions that they have done with the game, and to give a sense to the non-gamer what playing this game actually, physically looks like. I'm not fighting on removing it, but like the above ones that Fuchs questioned, I'd like more opinions before doing so. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but even if it's free it doesn't mean it's adding to the article more. The external reader might care less about random people playing the game at PAX, but every reader will see note in the fact that Ringo and Paul personally came out to support and introduce the game. As far as demonstration of how to play the game, such images may be better suited for Rock Band (series), unless the image more clearly demonstrates multiple vocalists, which of course is unique to this title. --Teancum (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the concern is that we're putting nobodies above Paul and Ringo in this section? That can be fixed by image placement. --MASEM (t) 04:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really -- it's more of a is it necessary kind of thing. As a reader I wouldn't care if the game was demoed at PAX, but it makes a difference that Ringo/Paul were a big part of the game. --Teancum (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary either - but it is also a free image, so we're not as strict with those. That said, what would be your take if the image was located in the gameplay section? I don't see this as much a promotion (though we do advert where it was taken) but more "here's what people look like when playing the game" which helps who has never played a music game to get the feel of. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the caveat that I am not a fan of The Beatles and I have never played or seen anyone play Rock Band or Guitar Hero. I was therefore pleasantly surprised that I could follow this article reasonably well; it is presented very accessibly for newbies like me. A few minor issues:
I have no idea what a "fret button" is. Perhaps an entry could be created at wiktionary and linked back here?
I didn't know who/what "Apple Corps" was and had to click the link to find out. Perhaps we can make this a tad clearer in the article for non-Beatles fans like me?
I've worded it slightly differently and linked to fret (here on WP), and explained a bit what Apple Corps is in their first appearance in the dev section. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't it a bit soon after the release of the game? I fear we're still too close to the "event" so to speak. Surely secondary source material is still actively being generated about the game. It's not that big a deal with behind the scenes information, but it does become an issue when considering still-gelling critical and commercial reaction (for example: have nominations for video game industry awards been determined yet?). Just something to think about. 10:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I did ponder that- my personal take on it is that it is settled to the point where a cohesive article of FA quality is possible, and that adjustments from this point on are minor enough so that the core of the article will remain relatively intact (with minor upkeep). Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only likely things that will change in the future of this article are more sales figures (either through the holidays or over the year), and if Harmonix decides to publish more downloadable content. There are placeholders for these should that information appear, but its information we cannot assure of being there, nor its it critical for a total comprehensive article. That is, there is no short-term instability envisioned for this article. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 15 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.
We are nominating this for featured article because we believe it represents some of the best work that Wikipedia has to offer regarding state parks. It follows a format and style very similar to that of Black Moshannon State Park, Worlds End State Park, Leonard Harrison State Park, Colton Point State Park, and Cherry Springs State Park, which are all featured articles that we have worked on. It has undergone an extensive peer review (thanks to Brianboulton and Niagara). This follows the MOS here, specifically In articles that cover two or more taxonomic groups, a consistent style of capitalization should be used for species names. This could involve the use of: ...title case for common names of species throughout (see WP:BIRDS) and lower case for non-specific names such as eagle or bilberry, which may work well for articles with a broad coverage of natural history.
Although there is not much there today beyond picnic tables, a parking lot, and a lovely trout stream, it has an interesting history. Thanks in advance for any feedback, Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch><>°°21:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words. All of the images are on Commons, so do you have any suggestions? My rationale for the lead image is that the park today is essentially a picnic area and parking lot and a trout stream and it shows two of those (table and stream). There's nothing else man-made there now except for a few signs and the reinforced stream banks. I personally think that File:Upper Pine Bottom State Park Run 1.jpg is the prettiest image, but it is a bit dark and fits better in the Ecology section (I think). I am open to suggestions though, Ruhrfisch><>°°23:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS There is also a funny story about the lead image - maybe I'll relate it on the article talk page someday, but it makes it a special pic for me. Ruhrfisch><>°°23:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"large predators such as Wolves, Lynx, Wolverines, Panthers, Fishers, Bobcats and foxes" Lowercase, as with next sentence.
you'll find this note here and at the top of the other Pennsylvania state park FAs. -- Note - the convention used for this article is that species names are capitalized, but other plant and animals are not: so "Cooper's Hawk", but just "hawks". -- Dincher (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: My detailed comments were made at peer review, where all my concerns were satisfactorily addressed. I like the new lead image. I'm sure that further minor fixes will arise from this review, since every article is capable of further improvement, but in my view the featured article criteria are satisfied here. The detail is thorough, the images are awesome. A worthy addition to the Parks series. Brianboulton (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your support and kind words - there 120 Pennsylvania State Parks, so we'd need 40 FAs and 80 GAs (eek). The are 21 parks in the "20 must see parks" list (they count two as one) so that might be a better potential FT. Ruhrfisch><>°°20:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence is missing a word or words: "A post office was established in nearby Waterville in 1849; other early business establishments there were two stores, and a hotel which still stands." Maybe "... other early businesses included two stores and a hotel, which still stands."
Brianboulton suggested we change the last comma to its current location in the PR, my guess is it is an AE vs. BE issue. Anyway, changed now to your version, thanks Ruhrfisch><>°°21:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Economic development and increased settlement led the Pennsylvania General Assembly to establish Cummings Township in 1832, with land taken from parts of Mifflin and Brown Townships." - Maybe "Economic development and increased settlement led the Pennsylvania General Assembly to establish Cummings Township in 1832 from land taken from parts of Mifflin and Brown Townships."
"The boom was a series of artificial islands with chains between them to catch logs and led to an expansion of the lumber industry, with Williamsport becoming the "Lumber Capital of the World". - Maybe "The boom, a series of artificial islands with chains between them to catch logs, led to an expansion of the lumber industry and to Williamsport's nickname, "Lumber Capital of the World".
"Nothing was left except the dried-out tree tops, which became a fire hazard." - For readers who know nothing about logging, should something be added to explain that the tree tops were discards littering the floor of the former forest?
Added "discarded" so it now reads Nothing was left except the discarded, dried-out tree tops, which became a fire hazard, so much of the land burned and was left barren. Tried to add that they were on the ground, but it didn't read well. Also tried adding "and stumps" after tree tops, but it also seemed awkward. How is the current version? Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°°21:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
State forest and park
Conservationists like Dr. Joseph Rothrock became concerned that the forests would not regrow if they were not managed properly." - Delete "Dr." per WP:CREDENTIAL. You could add, "a physician" after his name, but his medical degree doesn't seem directly related to his forest expertise.
"Although the roof of a structure was still visible in the park in a 1959 aerial photo, as of 2009 there are no pavilions or other structures in the park." - Maybe "buildings" instead of "structures" since picnic tables and signs might be considered structures?
When Pine Creek flowed northeast, where was the mouth? Maybe this is unknown, but I can't help wondering.
I did not add this to the article as it seems too off topic, but Dillon's book (which I happened to have at hand) says that Pine Creek followed what is now Marsh Creek northeast from where Ansonia is now (the northern end of the gorge, where US 6 crosses Pine Creek). My recollection from Owlett's book is that the proto-Pine Creek is believed to have followed the rough course of Crooked Creek after that, which flows into the Tioga River, which in turn flows north into New York state and the Chemung River and that eventually flows into the Susquehanna River. You can see follow most of this on the PennDOT Tioga County map here (follow US 6 NE out of Ansonia, then PA 287 to the NY line). Probably more detail than you wanted. ;-) Ruhrfisch><>°°21:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be helpful to say approximately when the land around what is now the park was part of a shallow sea? I'm thinking of readers who might wrongly conclude that the "20,000 years ago" in the first paragraph applied also or almost to the shallow sea.
Striking all. Everything I mentioned has been resolved. Thanks for the Pine Creek flow details; I thought maybe proto-Allegheny, but proto-North Branch Susquehanna is an interesting answer. Finetooth (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking the images. I scanned and uploaded the photo originally and included all available information in Owlett's book (my source). Later when I saw the same image in Taber's book, I added all of the information Taber's book contained about it. I have three ideas:
I will email the Pennsylvania Lumber Museum next and ask if they have any publication information on the image.
Owlett's book (the source) identifies this as on Pine Creek and says that the last log drive on Pine Creek was in 1905. Is there any sort of "over 100 years old" license?
Update - I emailed the Lumber Museum before they opened Thursday. It has been two business days and I have heard nothing yet. How long should I wait? Ruhrfisch><>°°23:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will wait until the end of the business day Tuesday (which will be four business days). I have already made a low res version of the image just in case. Ruhrfisch><>°°03:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, after 3.5+ business days I have heard nothing back from the Pennsylvania Lumber Museum, so I put a copyvio tag on the high res scan on Commons here and uploaded a low res, fair use justified verison here at File:Pine Creek Log Raft.jpg. I will also leave this not on Karanacs' talk page. Ruhrfisch><>°°19:13, 10 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.
I am nominating this for featured article because... I spent a great deal of time preparing the article for GA, which passed with relative ease. I believe the article is both comprehensive and well written. The Bookkeeper(of the Occult)12:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The one linked image (the album cover) lacks alternate text for readers who can't see the image. (The star ratings are fine.)
Speaking of images, try to find any other relevant ones (ideally free ones of people involved in the recording, of critics, etc.). Surely there could be one more to illustrate the article body?
Control is the third studio album by American recording artist Janet Jackson, released on February 6, 1986 by A&M Records, and is widely regarded as the breakthrough album of her career. - run on. Better as ... by A&M records. It is...
Supportwith some nitpicks Sources fine. All-round excellence. Welcome to the high-quality album article club. If only I had a Green Jacket to give out.
Go through the citations: If a singular page is cited, then it only needs "p." and not "pp."
Try and find another review to complete the 10-review limit in the infobox. (User:Andrzejbanas has the Spin guide which may have reviewed it.)
The Personnel section needs a citation, usually the album liner notes.
Sort the Accolades by year, a couple are out of sync.
Support - Very well written. My only quibble is the use of "African American" in the "Release and Promotion" section. It's not a term used outside the US and in a paragraph with copious usage of the word "black" to describe black women, it looks odd. -- EA SwyerTalkContributions16:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) first certified Control gold on April 18, 1986, denoting 500,000 units shipped within the United States. Two months later, on June 13, 1986, the album was RIAA certified platinum, denoting 1,000,000 units shipped. The following year [1987, right?], Control was RIAA certified 5x [fivefold] platinum on October 26, 1989." [1989 came after 1986, is not 1987?]--Cannibaloki16:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Overall the article is quite good; I left some minor comments on Bookkeeper's talk page. I'm leaning towards a support. Two issues, though. One, the prose could use some polish. Some sentences run on a bit, or have garbled structure. Not too much of it, though. Second, and more serious: were no Janet Jackson biographies consulted as sources? Even if they're worthless as sources, we need to know that you consulted them in order to fulfill the comprehensiveness criteria of the FAC process. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Created by a andesitic lava flow approximately seven million years ago and shaped by erosion, they now stand over 800 feet (240 m) above the surrounding valley. - I think it might be better to use specifics here
The land is jointly owned; The Nature Conservancy is responsible for 3,591 acres (14.53 km2), while the Bureau of Land Management is responsible for 1,280 acres (5.180 km2 - what land? The land where the U<R are? The land surrounding it?
The 44-mile (71 km) long lava flow produced by the eruption nearly blanketed the entire Rogue Valley,[1] - no hyphen
Erosion has continued, leaving the rocks 800 feet (240 m) above the valley floor,[4][6] and just over 2,000 feet (610 m) above sea level.[4] - erosion of what?
From the outermost base of the rocks, three regions called oak savanna, chaparral, and mixed woodland surround the relatively flat tops. - the regions are called this? Do you mean they consist of?
This Indian reservation remained open for three years,[6][20] at which time the inhabitants were moved to other reservations.[18][21] - grammar
Ref 4 is cited nearly 50 times and I'm assuming it's a book. All the citations need page numbers without fail. You can add the book to a new bibliography section and then cite simply "xxx, p. xx" each time. RB88 (T) 20:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I borrowed that book and have since returned it (I've been kicking myself for not writing the page numbers down). I'll try to get my hands on it within the week. LittleMountain501:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few passive-voice sentences in the article could easily be flipped to active voice, and I think they should be. For example, "The rocks were inhabited for at least 15,000 years by the Takelma people" can become "The Takelma people inhabited the rocks for at least 15,000 years." The next one that is easy to flip is "Due to these species and others, the rocks have been listed as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern by the Bureau of Land Management since 1984." This could become "To protect threatened species, the Bureau of Land Management has listed the rocks as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern since 1984." When the actor is known, instead of "noun was verbed by X", write "X verbed noun" for more concise and punchy prose throughout.
I see overlinking in the article. "Snow", "wind speed" and "climate", "treaty", "telephone", "fall", "blooming", "snake", "poisonous", "fundraising", all familiar to most readers of English, are examples.
The common names of bird species are usually capitalized even if editors elect not to capitalize the common names of other species. The bird convention is explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds#Bird names and article titles. This does not apply to groups of birds such as "woodpeckers", but it does apply to Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, Anna's Hummingbird, Pileated Woodpecker, Turkey Vulture, Rock Wren, and Acorn Woodpecker. I note also that many Wikipedia articles on non-bird species use capital letters for the common names of species as well. Examples in this article include Heermann's Kangaroo Rat, California Ground Squirrel, Ringneck Snake, and Striped Whipsnake. I'm inclined to follow the lead of biologists on these conventions.
"Vernal pools fill on the top of the plateaus in the winter and the spring due to the impermeable andesite located there." - Would this be more clear as "Vernal pools atop the plateaus fill during the rainy season in winter and spring because the andesite is impermeable"?
I find the fifth paragraph of the lede confusing. "The plateaus are named for their location along the Rogue River, not for their height." Doesn't "table" refer to their flat tops rather their elevation, height, or their relationship to the river?
"Sandstone and shale are the most common type of rocks hidden underneath the andesite cap" - "Types" rather than "type"?
"In May, most of the rest were relocated via the Columbia to the Siletz Reservation." - Perhaps saying that Columbia was a ship would make the meaning more clear to readers unfamiliar with Oregon history. Or you might just not mention the mode of transportation; it was actually modes since the Grande Ronde Reservation is not on the ocean or a navigable river.
"The facility is closed to the public due to the threat to the safety of the occupants of the aircrafts." - "Aircraft" rather than "aircrafts"?
Struck comments above. This is quite a nice article, well-illustrated, and I think it now meets the criteria. I changed one more passive to active, added uppercase letters to quite a few more species, and unlinked a few more common words. I'm not a biologist, and I sometimes have trouble deciding whether a common name refers to a species or a group; I looked up the ones I changed, but it's possible that some are still imperfect. A third opinion from a scientist might be helpful.Also, some of the image licenses look odd to me. Image:Table Rock Galls.jpg looks familiar and complete, but Image:Upper Table Rock Trail.jpg and some of the others are less tidy and are flagged for a doublecheck. I suggest using the Table Rock Galls format for all of the license pages and then removing the flags so that readers can see at a glance the description, date, own work statement, and author.Finetooth (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support and your work on the article. I've started to fix the image pages, it seems they all got jumbled up when they were moved to Commons. Thanks again, LittleMountain514:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've dug up a couple links about capitalization: 1, 2, 3, 4. Summary: There's no consensus. Either way is accepted, although all the specific bird names should be capitalized. I'm fine with it either way. Thanks, LittleMountain501:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with whatever you decide. I wish it were a settled matter, but it appears not to be. Please undo my caps if you like them better in lower-case (except the birds). Finetooth (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment (by Ruhrfisch) As noted, I peer reviewed this and think it is pretty close to FA now. I have some questions / quibbles first though:
There is a problem with this sentence The Takelma tribe of Native Americans inhabited the Table Rocks for at least 15,000 years by the Takelma people. Please fix it
Could One species of wildflower called the Dwarf Woolly Meadowfoam grows around these pools,... be made more concise as The Dwarf Woolly Meadowfoam, a species of wildflower, grows around these pools,...?
I think I asked about this in PR, but The Table Rocks have continued to erode, leaving them 800 feet (240 m) above the valley floor,[4][7] ... seems incorrect - the Table Rocks do not erode (at least as much), the surroundings do, which is how the Table Rocks formed (if I understand what is going on correctly)
Here the first subject is Joesph Lane, but the party doing the ceding in the clause are the Native Americans, which could be confusing (makes it sound like Lane did the ceding). Would it read better as The Native Americans signed a treaty with Joseph Lane in September 1853, ceding 2,500 square miles (6,500 km2) of their land for $60,000. ?
Oppose on criterion 3 - File:Table Rock VOR.jpg - The image description page says "This picture was taken by my wife (who of course has no problem letting me upload it)". We need an OTRS ticket confirming this. (We don't want to start saying that a husband has total ownership over his wife's intellectual property! We'd be slipping back a few centuries.) Let's hear that the copyright is released from the copyright holder. Awadewit (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I'm talking about. As for the rest, I was trying to head off the argument that a husband automatically has the right to release his wife's intellectual property. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the geology section of the article and I had a hard time following it; I think it would be better if it were in more of a chronological order and would be willing to rewrite it for you. Typically, "inverted topography" refers to a river channel that is filled with lava, and then becomes a topographic high; while I can conceptually see applying that term to a river valley, what in the region that was once higher than the valley floor is now lower than it? (Was it the volcanoes?) If nothing, the term "relict surface" would be better.
I've found a much clearer and more straightforward history published by the BLM; this published history has good figures that we could use because they're from a US government agency, and after reading it, I felt that I understood what the Wiki article was getting at. I know that they don't always get the geologic history 100% correct though, so I'd like to know if the longtime contributors to the article have anything to say on the factual accuracy of the BLM summary. Awickert (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's a bit hard to follow; a rewrite would be great if you have the time to do it. As for the inverted topography, the river canyon that was filled with lava was once below the the rest of the Rogue Valley, but the valley has since eroded, leaving the much harder lava above it. I'm not sure what 'relict surface' means, but I think 'inverted topography' fits. The BLM page seems correct, and it is actually ref number 1 3 in the article. I don't think I'd like to directly copy it though, if that's what you're getting at. Thanks, LittleMountain500:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK - so the paleo-canyon walls eroded, and these are remnants of the valley bottom that now sit high above the surrounding area - I get it now, so inverted topography works for me. But since I didn't get it from the article, a rewrite will be in order; I will do it when I get a chance and give you permission to prod me at my talk until if I don't do it in the next 48 hours.
To answer your question, "relict surface" refers to any old fragment of a dissected landscape.
As to BLM: I should have looked at the refs, but Google steered me to the BLM nonetheless. Don't worry - the rewrite will be in my words, Awickert (talk) 08:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it; since I see conflicting info from our current sources, I am going to see if I can get some geologic maps from the USGS. Once I get my hands on those, I'll have a much more authoritative source from which to write about the geologic history, Awickert (talk) 07:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ProvisionalSUPPORT Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)CommentsAuntieruth55 (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC) This is a fascinating article, and I echo sentiments from above: a geology article that isn't about hurricanes and typhoons! Hooray! Provisional because your prose issues (geological jargon?) confuses.[reply]
If you have the material, your sections on the ecozones could be fleshed out some: primarily why and where do these ecozones exist on the Rocks? what are the conditions that create them? Beyond that, my list is below (of prose issues) and you're addressing them. Keep up the good work on this. Very nice article. :)Also, really need to change history to HUMAN history...since the previous section is also history, you'll need to distinguish. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)I have mostly prose issues, and to some extent presentation. In the first section:
[reply]
Upper and Lower Table Rock were created when Olson Mountain, near present day Lost Creek Lake, erupted approximately seven million years ago.. The eruption of Olson Mountain, near present-day Lost Creek Lake, created Upper and Lower Table rock. (two different wikilinks adjacent, makes it difficult to follow. Also, subject placement...eruption.
The 44 mile (71 km) long lava flow produced by the eruption nearly blanketed the entire Rogue Valley,[1] covering an ancient Rogue River canyon with over 100 feet (30 m) of lava... The eruption produced a 44 mile long lava flow that covered an ancient river canyon with more that 100 feet of lava. If the ancient Rogue River was so named, then this needs an explanation.
Since that time, the Rogue River has eroded 90 percent of the lava away from the surrounding areas, leaving behind a sheet of hard andesite with an average thickness of 125 feet (38 m) in place of the canyon.. In the seven million years since the Olson eruption, the Rogue River has eroded 90 percent of the lava, exposing a sheet of hard andesite with an average thickness of 125 feet.
Sandstone and shale are the most common types of rocks hidden underneath the andesite cap, deposited from the Rogue River approximately 38 million years ago
The Table Rocks are an example of inverted topography..This is your first sentence.
The Table Rocks offer an example of inverted topography. Thirty-eight million years ago, an ancient river deposited sandstone and shale in the valley. The eruption of Olson Mountain, near present-day Lost Creek Lake, created the basic formations of Upper and Lower Table rock. The eruption produced a 44 mile long lava flow that covered an ancient river canyon to a depth of 100 feet or more. In the seven million years since the Olson eruption, the Rogue River has eroded 90 percent of the lava, exposing a sheet of hard andesite with an average thickness of 125 feet.
:Geology and climate. In this section, you start talking about the formations' geological history, then you switch to climate, ecozones, etc., and then in the following section you go back to its history (albeit human history). May I suggest the following
Geological history (1.1) Formation (1.2) (1.3) Continuing influences (or something like this)
Human uses (2.1) Clovis period (2.2) Takelman uses (2.4) Euroamerican uses (2.5) Present day uses (2.5.1) Ownership and management (2.5.2) Trails
and these could be broadened.
*Ecological habitats (3.1) Oak savanna (3.2) Chaparral (3.3) Mixed Woodland (3.4) Mounded prairie and vernal pools.
and these also could be expanded.
:*this is where the bit on the shrimp goes, not in the geological formation section
I would be interested in knowing the relationship between these ecozones and the table rocks' geologic development.
;citation issues
Reyes, Kennedy, Capps, Janes, and Latimer could be shortened. You don't need every author, just one, to identify the source.
bibliography only has 2 sources, but your citations list many. I realize they are newspaper articles. I would list them. You might look at Inner German Border to see how the editor addressed organizing multiple periodical references.
;prose issues
For example, He (Day) funded residential lots near the landmark with the intent of marketing them-- landmark?
there are lots of these, that seem to come out of the blue, so to speak. I think the prose needs a bit more work. Actually, a lot more work. Similar to that paragraph I showed you yesterday, you could make sure that your paragraphs actually have a subject sentence, and that the paragraph deals with the subject. It may be helpful to put an "under construction" sign on the article, and really give it a go through.
;images
these are terrific (with Adewait's qualification about the husband/wife thing), and I especially like variety: the panorama and the lizard, the large broad view and the small close up view. The prose should mirror the images, with focus, and big picture. You've caught the idea with the pictures; I'd like to see you do the same with the prose.
everything should stay in your citations section, and be reiterated in the bibliography. I'd probably make a separate section for books, monographs, encyclopedic works, and one for periodicals, and one for websites. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your bibliography is superb!!! You're setting a new standard for bibliographies. I'm very proud of you! I have one question, and you may not be able to answer this, we might need another reviewer who knows these things better than I do. what is the policy on putting the location of the newspaper into the bibliographic entry, when there is a wiki article on that newspaper and it's linked...does it still need to say Mail Tribune (Medford, OR)? or is the link sufficient? Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I did some digging and found a bit about news articles at WP:CITEHOW. It states that 'citations for newspaper articles typically include... city of publication, if not included in name of newspaper', so I'll add Medford to the refs tomorrow. Cheers, LittleMountain503:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the text very carefully, but I think it needs a little more work to bring the prose up to par. The other ingredients seem to be all in place, and I trust the primary author(s) will continue to work on the article after it gains the star. Fowler&fowler«Talk»00:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some examples:
Lead;
European American settlers forced the Takelma into Indian reservations.
(Since the reservations could be on the Rocks themselves, it is better to have:) European American settlers forced the Takelma out of the Table Rocks and into reservations. (I don't think you need "Indian")
To protect these threatened species and others
To protect these and other threatened species
Two trails have been built on the rocks: Lower Table Rock Trail, and Upper Table Rock Trail. The trails were created in the early 1980s by the Youth Conservation Corps, Boy Scouts, and the Oregon Department of Forestry.
(Trails are typically "cut." Also, I'm assuming you mean "The Rocks" rather than "the rocks," since the plateaus now have topsoil and foliage. Best to combine the sentences:) Two trails, Lower Table Rock Trail and Upper Table Rock Trail, were cut on/across the Table Rocks/plateaus in the early 1980s by the Youth Conservation Corps, Boy Scouts, and the Oregon Department of Forestry.
Might be a good idea to reduce some of the jargon.
Example:
(Section 1): Starting approximately 40 million years ago in the middle Eocene,[1] an ancient braided river system occupied the region into which the Rogue Valley is now carved.[2] This river system deposited what is known as the Payne Cliffs Formation by first laying down a thin basal conglomerate, which was followed by arkosic sandstones and siltstones.[2][3][4] Deposition halted by 37.9 million years ago.
Around 40 million years ago an ancient river system crisscrossed the present-day Rogue Valley. For 2.1 million years, it deposited ...
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]
Two dead external links, both in ref 15 and both from nla.gov.au (no response at all); all others work.
All images have alt text. You could probably mention the three other men near the craft in the South West Pacific pic's alt, but I'm not entirely sure that's necessary. Otherwise, I think the alts are perfect.
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]
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?
Been described as an import-export business so will go with that unless I find any additional info in the library this evening. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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,
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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?
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 [24]) 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: [25]), 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]
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]
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]
: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....?
: 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]
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]
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]
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.
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.
Hmm, I've always seen it the way I wrote it so I'd find spaces around the dash a bit odd; would you settle for "import and export" or "import-and-export"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 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.
"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]
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. ϢereSpielChequers08:51, 30 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.ϢereSpielChequers14:58, 28 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]
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.
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]
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]
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. --anoddname20:37, 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]
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. --anoddname15:59, 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]
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
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."
I cited the episodes when another citation was used in conjunction to avoid potential confusion, as certain quotes and information come from the episode itself. Ophois (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I second that source concern—the site doesn't assert any fact-checking practices anywhere I can easily find, and never says anything about "Jerrica"'s credentials. Do any other reliable sources use or praise moviesonline.ca? --anoddname20:27, 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. --anoddname21:36, 25 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]
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]
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?
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)
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)
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)
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". --anoddname17:02, 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. --anoddname18:16, 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]
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]
"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]
Comment I have no real interest in this topic, but I saw your comment on Sandy's page, so I thought I'd take a look. Generally well written, but some nitpicks. Jimfbleak - talk to me?07:32, 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
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?
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]
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]
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]
"...with the character's motivation being that she was Ally Sheedy from The Breakfast Club." - Why? Is there more to elaborate on about this? An explanation as to why that would be motivation for evil. BIGNOLE (Contact me)
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]
"While the final version of the episode is quite enclosed..." - again, which are we talking about? If it's one or the other, or both, it should be more clear since we have an article about 2 episodes. BIGNOLE (Contact me)13:52, 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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
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. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs02:31, 19 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. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs23:16, 23 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]
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. --JN46601:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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." --JN46602:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs02:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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? rʨanaɢtalk/contribs02:15, 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". rʨanaɢtalk/contribs04:51, 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 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?
This is discussed in more detail at the beginning of the plot section, and I can't think of any way to expand it in the lede without getting awkwardly wordy for a summary... rʨanaɢtalk/contribs20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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!
"dropping out to pursue work" - perhaps it's obvious, but why was this happening?
Generally because of poverty in rural areas and a perception that formal schooling isn't necessary or useful. I don't have the source for that bit handy, but I can check it tonight. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"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. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs20:23, 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. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs20:23, 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?
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]
CommentsSupport 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?
According to our article, this was his 9th film; the first 7 all starred Gong Li. The reason I included this sentence is that his collaboration with her was so well-known and this was a major break from it; the source cited also seems to imply that the lack of Gong Li is relevant to the casting (more specifically, that not having her to work with anymore pushed him to try something new here). rʨanaɢtalk/contribs05:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 guess I can stick it at the beginning of the first paragraph there, before the more detailed stuff starts. Personally I don't care much for these aggregators, but most of our film articles seem to have them so I figured I should follow the standard. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs05:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as to what has been published in Chinese sources? Might these provide different perspectives on the film?
I haven't looked at many (I think I only have 3 in the article), but what I have seen seems to confirm the "main melody" side of the critical reception... one talks mostly about how the film has good lessons for educators, another pretty much runs down all the places where the film premiered and how great the turnout was. I just found another source and will add it shortly; for the most part, the views from mainland China seem more unified than the ones from abroad. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs05:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"performances of the amateur actors,[18][21][28] and Jean-Michel Frodon of Le Monde call the actors' performances " performances..actors..actors..performances... in one sentence reads a little clumsily.
Refs 23, 29 and 51 share a lot of common information. Is 29 missing something?
They're the same source, but two of those refs have a quote. In earlier versions, I just had the quote in the prose, but I recently moved it into the ref to avoid breaking up the prose, and that required breaking up the ref a few times. Having the quote there is necessary, I think, as this is a French source and non-French-speaking readers who want to check it would need some way of knowing which part is relevant.
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]
Notice - reviewer hasn't returned. I have asked requested the reviewer to return to this page here: [30] and [31], but evidently he has been quite busy the past several weeks. SynergyStar (talk) 03:50, 6 November 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]
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 [32]. 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]
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.
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]
The image is OK as is. I'll try to add a safety statement. Adding some details like you mentioned are in order. I added a sentence on the hydraulic systems. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:51, 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]
Numbers have been removed from multiple sections, including each of the Variants subsections. They have been replaced with more general mentions, or left to the specs table. SynergyStar (talk) 06:45, 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. [33], "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]
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]
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]
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 [34]. 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.
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]
Oops, someone had mentioned that the time should be clarified in the lead, and I forgot to remove the note in the lower section. Thanks for catching that. Parsecboy (talk) 21:57, 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:
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.
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.
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.
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 think the article should mention that Queen Mary was not the first battle cruiser to sink. HMS_Indefatigable was the first.
Done.
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_Zero18:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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]
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_Zero18:55, 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]
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_Zero18:59, 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_Zero19:06, 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]
Convert templates not complete. Infobox needs Speed and range conversions. There are other measurements in the article that need doing as well. Don't forget that knots and nautical miles need mph as well as km/h.
How does having the numbers improve the article? It might make the sources more easy to find, but these are already easy to find, and the use of the numbers just links the Bibliography to that particular edition. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments/PreliminarySUPPORT. 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?
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]
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. -MBK00423:21, 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 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]
Thanks, Ian. Your edits are good, you've assumed just the right amount :) I tweaked that line to remove the passive voice, thanks for pointing that out. Parsecboy (talk) 23:09, 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.
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... BencherliteTalk11:35, 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.
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. ISBN0333486145." a signed encyclopedia article? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I made it clearer by separating Decline from Comment. The citations are consistent. The Comment just says that one part of 1c is done. (A fiddly horribly part). Fifelfoo (talk) 10:11, 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. BencherliteTalk10:33, 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. BencherliteTalk10:50, 29 October 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.
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. BencherliteTalk12:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (How could I not when I am on the poster?) I see I have made 7 edits, mostly typos & pictures. Meets the criteria & on an architectural period that is I imagine under-represented here, at least for European buildings. Up to Bencherlite's usual high standard. Johnbod (talk) 19:25, 30 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]
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. – TMF04:15, 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.
Support - I made a couple of minor edits as I read through, but couldn't find anything serious - although as a Brit I had to grit my teeth at "Thruway" (: -I'm happy to support this Jimfbleak - talk to me?07:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This 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 | Talk18:57, 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 | Talk20:56, 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)
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.
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]
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:
The gallery in Middle basin. I fixed it to use {{Image gallery}}, which supports alt text. Please add alt text to its entries; you can do this by replacing the "||" in each line with "|alt text for this image|".
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.
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]
{{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]
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
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]
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).
"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?
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 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?
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]
SupportComments 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.
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 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.
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.
SupportComments (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.
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.
Sorry to be unclear, I actually meant should the year ranges of existence be added to the captions (I think some readers look at the images and captions first). Ruhrfisch><>°°01:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 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.
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).
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).
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.
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?
"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?
"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."
"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."
File:PAState Capitol Outside Statue.JPG - There is no freedom of panorama in the US. The only way this image is free is if the sculpture was installed before 1923. According to the article, the sculpture was made in 1909. Please document on the image description page the date of installation and the sculptor's name (see above link for details).
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".
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.
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.
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]
Comment. Without going any further into the article the lead appears much too long, it should be an easily readable summary of the article's main points. Good luck, I was here recently as a nominator. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)23:26, 10 October 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]
Ok thanks, John and George are dead, could it be mentioned in the lead that only two of the four survive today and what Paul and Ringo are doing nowadays? I know they have their own articles but again it seems obvious to mention it. Is the fifth Beatle (Pete Best) taboo? Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)00:16, 14 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 RTalk14:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me—I was already toying with splitting it exactly there. Structurally, three is something of a magic number but sometimes more are needed. PL290 (talk) 14:30, 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 RTalk17:45, 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:
... and [47][48] (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]
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]
No, put like that I tend to agree, and as you've gone to the trouble of listing them I've now removed the locations to give greater consistency. PL290 (talk) 10:18, 14 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]
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: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 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. ISBN1846093418 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.
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?
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 ColmTalk18:21, 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.
I was just taking a look at one of your sources--Gould (2008)--and found this, which supports my suspicion that the discussion of Beatlemania is currently misplaced: "In the third week of November 1963, as the Beatlemania craze in Britain reached an early, dizzy height..." (p. 187; emphasis added).—DocKino (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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: [54]. (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]
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: [62]. PL290 (talk) 19:59, 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: [63] (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. [64]PL290 (talk) 08:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the 1990s section only mentions the Anthology - I wonder if it's worth mentioning the 1999 knife attack in which Harrison only narrowly escaped with his life - certainly a major incident.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:48, 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]
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:
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: [71] - 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]
In my opinion, you did VERY well to eliminate the phrase rather then to enumerate the three reasons. My sweet lord (so to speak). DocKino (talk) 07:35, 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]
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).
I've now trimmed the Allmusic Abbey Road cite and added Pitchfork cites for Revolver and the White Album. This diff [72] 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: [73]. (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]
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 RTalk12:56, 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]
Legacy - done: [81][82] "Recreational drug use" subsection removed, its constituent pieces now in their chronological locations in History with the exception of the petition which I have removed as not that significant for the article. I have also added a further paragraph to Legacy to introduce aspects that were omitted. 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: [87] - 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 RTalk22:06, 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
Most of the shortened footnotes end in a period, but a few don't
Shortened footnotes have the dates in parenthesis— not an egrigious issue, but it does differ from WP:CITESHORT
Inconsistent use of citation templates: Badman, Keith and Mark Lewisohn do not use one
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
Consider formatting References and Further reading with {{refbegin}}
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.
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.
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]
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]
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]
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.
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]
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.
