Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2010: Difference between revisions
promote 1 |
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) promote 4 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== January 2010 == |
== January 2010 == |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sacrifice (video game)/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cock Lane ghost/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Is This It/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carabane/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/International Space Station/archive4}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/International Space Station/archive4}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Garrow/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Garrow/archive1}} |
Revision as of 23:25, 17 January 2010
January 2010
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:25, 17 January 2010 [1].
- Nominator(s): Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
“ | There is still life in the games where you play as a wizard, collect incredibly powerful spells, build an army, and then go and sacrifice the bodies of your enemies to your god. | ” |
— David Perry (founder of Shiny Entertainment), The Illustrated History of Electronic Games High Scores! (2nd ed.). 2004. p. 277. |
Perry failed to mention that the wizard, Eldred, was a refugee tyrant from a world ravaged by a demon he had summoned. Apart from sacrificing his enemies and using their souls as cannon fodder, Eldred also sacrifices his troops to banish other wizards! The game's graphic engine uses tessellation, and its results—along with crazy creature designs—wowed reviewers. Throw in five gods who comically bicker and plot among themselves (one of whom is a large anthromorphic earthworm), and you get a game that was praised by all and enjoyed huge profits from the sales! ... or did it? Read on and judge (the article had been peer reviewed twice,[2][3] gotten A-class,[4] and given a quick copyedit by Maralia). Nonetheless, here is a dithy to appeal for your FAC review... (sing to this tune in a Tim Curry voice, or if you prefer, Brad Garrett, both of whom voiced gods in this game)
I worked my magic dearly to do my best
There must be more to this game than R-T-S
Why should we look for some other text
Is this article not the best there is?
Ain't no sense in not reviewing
I'm gonna make it worth your ride
Don't you know
I won't give up until you've read Sacrifice
Don't you know
Why should I stop until you've read Sacrifice
Awaiting your comments. Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eldred? That sounds like one of those Gregorian mission people. :D ceranthor 02:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Please reconsider the dab hatnote on top—people probably won't type "Sacrifice (video game)" to look for any other sense of the word. Otherwise,no dabs or dead external links.- Alt text looks good.
Perhaps you can mention that the game screenshots take place under mostly cloudy skies. - Dates throughout are consistent Month Day, Year.
- An evil-looking character looking over a landscape...hmm...I swear I've seen that before...
- Shame that there's no mention of cow launchings.
--an odd name 08:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, the hatnote has been removed. Blame Interplay's box artist for any plagiarism of concepts (heh). As for cows... I had taken a screenshot of James' Bovine Intervention spell, but the cow looked too small to be of any use (and critical commentaries of cow-tapults are lesser than the natural element spells). Tis a shame... Jappalang (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good points. Thank you for the fast response. --an odd name 08:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Missed it, but I have added descriptions of the sky in the alt text. Jappalang (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good points. Thank you for the fast response. --an odd name 08:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, the hatnote has been removed. Blame Interplay's box artist for any plagiarism of concepts (heh). As for cows... I had taken a screenshot of James' Bovine Intervention spell, but the cow looked too small to be of any use (and critical commentaries of cow-tapults are lesser than the natural element spells). Tis a shame... Jappalang (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments (c.1, 2, 3): Well, you certainly put effort into the nomination statement and edit summary, props for that :) It'll take me some time to get through the entire article (workin' over the holidays, yay!), but I have to re-register my opinion expressed at the peer review that the article does not meet WP:NFCC. File:Sacrifice by Interplay - formation.jpg can be reduced in resolution, File:Sacrifice by Interplay - creatures.jpg could be cropped, resized or simply reshot, and I don't think the single opinion used in the reception section merits the level of commentary for File:Sacrifice by Interplay - tornado.jpg, especially since most graphic comments picked relate specifically to the creatures.
- Aside from that, the sources look good and the more iffy ones have been properly defended at the Peer review, methinks. There are no gaps in coverage for what we would expect. One flyby comment that I touched upon in the peer review and want to stress again is the changes in tense (in some areas it's present, in others past). I suggest changing it all to past, this not only frees you from concerns about having to update syntax in the article in the future but also gives it a more historical framing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Focusing on the tense issues, I was following WP:VG/GL#Verb tense where it implies unless a game never existed, it and its contents should be phrased in the present tense. Of course, I am amiable to changing this style if more grammar experts could weigh in (maybe we can possibly change the guideline if it is incorrect). Of the Reception section, only the talk on gameplay is in present tense, the rest (commentators' opinions) are couched in the past. If there are any glaring contradictions, I would appreciate anyone who points it out and I would quickly get on it. Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the images, the peer reviews expressed a variety of opinions (agreeing they satisfy the NFCC and disagreements), so I would prefer a wider range of opinions to make a concensus. Jappalang (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Cites are good Fifelfoo (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
2c needs a little bit of work differentiating between the work contained in and the publisher for some websites. I suspect Inside Mac Games is the name of a publication, rather than a publisher. This is a polish issue though.Dates are consistent in cites. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I have differentiated the publisher and work for the Mac sources. I believe that polishes up 2c. Jappalang (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I gave this a thorough peer review which sorted out many issues. I am not a natural reader of videogame articles, but I am impressed by the clarity with which this article explains its subject-matter. There is a small residue of niggly points, none of which is worth withholding support for:-
Why the multiple citations? (e.g. at the end of the Graphics section, fourth line of Reception section)?- The recognition "by the industry" requires several sources to show that it is the industry (and not just one or two sites) that recognize the game. Jappalang (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"To fellow journalist Kieron Gillen, the game resembled a version of Command and Conquer by Hieronymus Bosch if the Renaissance painter was its designer." I spent some time puzzling over this, not knowing that "Command and Conquer" refers to another strategy game. For clarity can I suggest "To fellow journalist Kieron Gillen, the game resembled a version of Command and Conquer as designed by the Renaissance painter Hieronymus Bosch."- I tweaked it a bit.[5] How does it look? Jappalang (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine now Brianboulton (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I tweaked it a bit.[5] How does it look? Jappalang (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the entirely ordinary phrase "a massive increase in blood pressure" deserves the status of a quote. It's a phrase anyone might say.- Quotation marks removed. Jappalang (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Another reason, offered by Gillen, for Sacrifice's commercial failure was the size of its development team." Should specify the small size, since this is I think the point being made.- Made explicit. Jappalang (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that "Legacy" is the most appropriate title for the last section. A legacy suggests something handed on or passed down; so far as I can see there was nothing passed on, apart from the game's pioneering of the mouse-gesture control system, hardly a "legacy". It's more a case of "consequences", "aftermath" or "repercussions".- Although "Legacy" might be pushing it, the three suggestions seem negative, and would make the game seem like some terrible natural disaster (not that Sacrifice evokes many positive thoughts, mind). When I read "aftermath" I think "hurricane death toll". Maybe I should blame the media. --an odd name 20:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with AnOddName about "aftermath"; it has been used too much with disasters such that there is a negative connotation in using it. I am amiable to changing the name of this sub-section (but to other suggestions), or removing the header and plonking the text into Reception, though. Jappalang (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think leaving it is the best option for the moment. Maybe in due course a better title will spring to mind, but it's not an issue as far as this FAC is concerned. Brianboulton (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with AnOddName about "aftermath"; it has been used too much with disasters such that there is a negative connotation in using it. I am amiable to changing the name of this sub-section (but to other suggestions), or removing the header and plonking the text into Reception, though. Jappalang (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although "Legacy" might be pushing it, the three suggestions seem negative, and would make the game seem like some terrible natural disaster (not that Sacrifice evokes many positive thoughts, mind). When I read "aftermath" I think "hurricane death toll". Maybe I should blame the media. --an odd name 20:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(PS: an aegrotat for the verses) Brianboulton (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, many thanks for that. Looks like I finally got a degree for song-writing (heh). Jappalang (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments What makes these reliable?
- http://www.gog.com/en/editorial/editorial_sacrifice
- Good Old Games is an online video games store. Although one might discount it for commercial interest here, its editorial is sourced for (1) plot information (which has no personal opinions or judgments injected, hence reliable) and (2) David Perry's statement of which specific fantasy genre his team avoided in designing the game's creatures (the source states this plainly, making it easy for anyone to verify Perry said that). None of the statements are simply opinions and readily verifiable fact. Jappalang (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2007/08/31/the-making-of-sacrifice/
- Rock, Paper, Shotgun is a website set up by Kieron Gillen, Jim Rossignol, Alec Meer and John Walker—all with long years of experience of writing for dead-tree video game publications and web-based established sites. This article refers to two articles written by Gillen, and the information is reliable based on his considered position of expertise knowledge of the video game industry and the subject. Jappalang (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/tfog.htm
- This site is set up by Richard Bartle, co-author of the first multi-user dungeon (MUD). He is a highly recognised figure within the computer role-playing game industry as a pioneer. He also has a PhD in artificial intelligences and is an active writer on the multi-player video game industry. The page referred is his article on the state of video gaming, and information sourced is from the interview he conducted with David Perry. The information is fact (technical details) and not an opinion or judgment; hence, reliable. Jappalang (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RB88 (T) 18:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have a look at this: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. We're going to need third-party sources to back up whether the sources can be considered reliable. RB88 (T) 11:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As already explained, Gillen is already an established expert in the industry with multiple articles published by third party sources (you can find them in his article or a casual search on Google). Bartle is an acknowledged expert too, with his Designing virtual worlds (as an example) a source for several other publications.[6] As for GOG, it is used with regards to WP:PRIMARY; the article is not interpreting the information it supplies, and I see no reason to dispute Perry's words as given. Nevertheless, I have asked Ealdgyth to offer another viewpoint on these sources.[7] Jappalang (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There was one reference that was using spaced em-dash; the others are using unspaced em-dashes. This has been corrected. Does that resolve your concern? Jappalang (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good fixed. GroundZ3R0 002 00:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There was one reference that was using spaced em-dash; the others are using unspaced em-dashes. This has been corrected. Does that resolve your concern? Jappalang (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So unconventional were the designs that gaming journalist Michael Eilers remarked... wouldn't it be easier for you just to say "The designs were so unconventional that..." I'm all for creative writing, but simple english is just as effective here and improves the prose. GroundZ3R0 002 00:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed.[8] Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the immense volume of reviews and thoughts in the reception section, I believe a {{VG Reviews}} box would benefit the article. This is going by the example set by other featured articles and the fact that such a thick amount of information would make it difficult for a reader to obtain simple review scores with such a format. Not a requirement, but strongly, strongly, recommended. GroundZ3R0 002 02:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to disagree here; it is not a requirement, but I also think it might not be of help here; I have outlined my reasons basically at Talk:Sacrifice (video game)#2009 Rewrite when I started rewriting the article. In summary, each reviewer has a different standard for his or her numerical score (and is incongruent when brought up against each other). Initially, I did not have a strong opinion for or against their inclusion, but am now favoring their exclusion (having read many dead-paper books that tend to exclude discussions of numerical scores when commenting on a game, and seeing numerous Wikipedia articles where the tables are stuffed with scores for various platforms and for "balance"), though not strongly. For the discussions on the tables, refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 76#Overuse of review boxes in Reception sections and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 62#New template for reviews section (the last thread has my pointers to older discussions too). Jappalang (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I do believe it helps ease reader comprehension, but the section does that well as it is. The exclusion of this will not stop me from supporting the FAC when I have made more comments if there are issues I notice. GroundZ3R0 002 03:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "No sales figures were released for Sacrifice, but the industry acknowledges the game did not sell well"--I'm not sure sourcing that to RPS and IMG exactly establishes it as "the industry". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not just RPS and IMG; the two following sentences expounding on this (James Bell's and Gillen's comments) also support the industry knowledge that the game failed to be a best seller. I figured that rather than tack them to the first general sentence (doubling the number of cites to it from 2 to 4), they would be more suitably attached to their detailed statments. Jappalang (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As Andy (below) also has doubts on this, I have refined "the industry" to "several members of the video game industry". Jappalang (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not just RPS and IMG; the two following sentences expounding on this (James Bell's and Gillen's comments) also support the industry knowledge that the game failed to be a best seller. I figured that rather than tack them to the first general sentence (doubling the number of cites to it from 2 to 4), they would be more suitably attached to their detailed statments. Jappalang (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further rejoinder: I have copyedited the article; I removed the unnecessary double-spaces between sentences, as the article was inconsistent about it, one way or another, and cut down of some redundancies and unnecessary phrases (there were one or two places I tweaked word choice, so I suggest checking and make sure I didn't misrepresent a source.) I also switched around some tenses. There are sections of the reception I did not change, because changing the tense from present to past would sound strange--the problem is that reviewers opinions of the game are essentially presented as fact, i.e. "Looking over the wizard from his back, the point of view focuses too close to the ground, preventing players from having a clear picture of their wizards' surroundings". These should be recast and optimally the whole critical reception section should be switched to past where appropriate, as you're describing reception that was, not is. I am leaning support, but the images are still a dealbraker for me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have recasted the section a tad, and also added more to the spell effects on reviewers.[9] I had initially discarded them because their comments were "less impressive" than the quotes by Bye, Gillen, and Edge; however, by adding them, I hope they further the impression of the graphics were not mostly on the creatures (it was quite balanced between the small creatures and the "gargantuan" spells). This should help show the significance of the tornado image. Jappalang (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Images replaced per below. Jappalang (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have recasted the section a tad, and also added more to the spell effects on reviewers.[9] I had initially discarded them because their comments were "less impressive" than the quotes by Bye, Gillen, and Edge; however, by adding them, I hope they further the impression of the graphics were not mostly on the creatures (it was quite balanced between the small creatures and the "gargantuan" spells). This should help show the significance of the tornado image. Jappalang (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Ruhrfisch - I have read this twice now and it seems to meet the FAC criteria - it is well-written, nicely illustrated with properly justified fair-use images, and the references seem fine to me too (though I am not an expert on games). I have a few quibbles, that do not detract from my support:
- Awkward sentence Close proximity to a fountain of mana scattered across the world increases his or her recovery rate as well. I think it means something like Close proximity to one of several fountains of mana scattered across the world increases his or her recovery rate as well.
- Would it make sense to add "computer" before platforms in Multiplayer matches cannot be played between different platforms.[30]
- Missing word? Perry promoted the game by visiting professional game reviewers, such as FiringSquad, and giving copies of the beta [version?] to them.[34]
Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Your suggestions make the article clearer to the general readers, so I have adopted them.[10] Jappalang (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: After viciously scanning this article for little clicks and mistakes, I have come up with none. I have no complaints with this article and therefore I express my thorough support for this to pass its FAC. GroundZ3R0 002 00:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with comments - Good work on this one! A couple bothers buried near the end... no show-stoppers but I'd like to see them answered.
"has been one of PC Gamer's Top 100 Games for at least eight consecutive years." Why no precision? Is the number not known, or are you just trying to maintain currency without going back to update?- Sort of both (though "at least 8 years"—2001 (release) to 2009 (last known Top 100 announcement)— is verifiable by checking up the PC Gamer's Top 100 for each year and Gillen's remarks. The phrase also allows a lesser frequency of updates (The Top 100 is also supposedly going to shift to a reader-votes based system instead of through editorial decisions, so future Top 100 might not be "reliable"...). Jappalang (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"but the industry acknowledged the game did not sell well." Hmm. I'm not crazy about letting Rock, Paper, Shotgun and Inside Mac Games speak for "the industry", are you?- Oh well, coupled with David Fuch's earlier remarks, I changed "the industry" to "several members of the video game industry"; this should be qualified by Gillen's and Eiler's pieces, and the followup by Bell. Jappalang (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, thanks. Great minds think alike, I guess David? --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh well, coupled with David Fuch's earlier remarks, I changed "the industry" to "several members of the video game industry"; this should be qualified by Gillen's and Eiler's pieces, and the followup by Bell. Jappalang (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A few Comments and questions for now—I know absolutely nothing about video games and apart from Space invaders, I have never played one so please forgive my ignorance:
I don't understand, "Each match starts the player's wizard with an altar."- Changed to "Each match starts the player with a wizard and an altar." Jappalang (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Similarly, "turn-based"
- The term is elaborated in the following sentence, but I see how it can confuse on the first read; I dropped the term, simplifying the clause to "which was released in 1985 for the ZX Spectrum computer." The following sentence is more than sufficient to explain the basic workings of that game. Jappalang (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*I didn't like "various voice talents" and "was an evolution of"
- I presume it is "voice talents" that is more of distaste? I changed it to "voice artists". I dropped the phrase with "evolution" and went for the simpler "was developed from" instead. Jappalang (talk)
*Can something be done about "Solid"? Does it mean "robust" or successful?
- The source states, "During the real-time strategy craze of the later '90s, publishers could just about guarantee that a solid real-time strategy would sell 100,000 units. On the other hand, a turn-based game needed to be marketed, promoted, and designed to perfection to crest that magical 100,000-unit mark." It could mean a real-time strategy that is either "fun" or well-designed would be a best-seller; however, unsure of which definition it could be, I felt it safer to just quote the word instead. Any help to resolve this would be appreciated if it is an obstacle to comprehension. Jappalang (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not an obstacle.Graham Colm Talk 13:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*This construction seems awkward; "They found that the game's interface, presenting a viewpoint that looked over the wizard from behind, hindered them from having a clear picture of their characters' surroundings." It looks a little like a camouflaged fused participle to me. How about a simple "which presented a viewpoint"? Perhaps even set off with a pair of emdashes?
- Adopted your suggestions.[11] Jappalang (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From a non-gamer's point of view, this is remarkably well-written and intelligible for a video game article (no offence meant David). I look forward to adding my support. Graham Colm Talk 11:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support There was a mistake about the size of the gaming market which is now corrected. I remember this game well, it was one of the last i played all the way through. Article seems to capture all the essentials. Very well written! FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewers, if you haven't already, could you please mention your thoughts on the images that David mentioned at the beginning of the FAC? Thanks. Karanacs (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on images: I think File:Sacrifice by Interplay - formation.jpg is fine. If it were any smaller resolution, I wouldn't be able to see any details and it would be useless. I concur with David's suggestion that File:Sacrifice by Interplay - creatures.jpg should be cropped to show just a handful of creatures, if at all. I would advocate for removing File:Sacrifice by Interplay - tornado.jpg completely. As I was reading, I didn't think it added anything to my understanding and I wouldn't say it is exactly the subject of critical commentary in the article. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I give. I have called back the monsters and retrenched several of them (had to whip some spells out to ensure they leave), refilming the scene for the monster cast. A new smaller-sized image, showing less creatures but zoomed in, is now in place. The tornado image has been replaced by one of Hieronymus Bosch's sketch.[12] Jappalang (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks :) --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I give. I have called back the monsters and retrenched several of them (had to whip some spells out to ensure they leave), refilming the scene for the monster cast. A new smaller-sized image, showing less creatures but zoomed in, is now in place. The tornado image has been replaced by one of Hieronymus Bosch's sketch.[12] Jappalang (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with the image tweaks I now feel this meets all criteria. An excellent article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:25, 17 January 2010 [13].
- Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 21:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because the Cock Lane ghost, while largely unknown now, was one of a handful of 18th-century scandals which today, almost defy belief. The other two being Mary Toft (who is included but not mentioned here), and Elizabeth Canning (who'll I'll get around to in a bit). User:Malleus Fatuorum has also been a great help with this, and if he desires I'll add him to the nomination. Parrot of Doom 21:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- -
Per WP:YEAR, year ranges should include two digits if within the same century (1756–57, not 1756–7).
- -
Notes and references should have separate headings, rather than both being listed under the same heading (see WP:LAYOUT). Also, "further reading" should be listed separately to references, with its own level 2 heading.- I'm happy to be corrected if wrong but I believe this to be a matter of preference - "Some articles divide this type of information into two or more separate sections; others combine it into a single section." For me, I just prefer a table of contents that is relatively uncluttered. Parrot of Doom 00:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I missed that point. Very well, since MOS accepts combining notes and references in one section, I'm fine with leaving it like that.
I think that "further reading" still needs to be listed under its own heading though. You may want to combine it with "external links" so that the contents remain uncluttered.Wcp07 (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I missed that point. Very well, since MOS accepts combining notes and references in one section, I'm fine with leaving it like that.
- Ok I can buy that, its going to form a trio of 'scandal' articles and at some point someone has changed Mary Toft in exactly the manner you suggest, so I've changed it to maintain the same style. Parrot of Doom 22:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - On the whole, it is a well-written and researched article and I would support its promotion to featured article after the above are addressed. Wcp07 (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All my issues have been addressed, so I support this article's promotion to featured article. Cheers. Wcp07 (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sources: Have you looked at some of the recent journal articles on the topic? A search on Google, for example, reveals a number of articles that include references both to the ghost and to Samuel Johnson. I'm not sure they support the view that Johnson was a skeptic (as you suggest in the lead). T. Kselman's 2009 review of Owen Davies's book, The Haunted—A Social History of Ghosts (2007), for example, alludes to the issue. Says Kselman: "Ghosts managed to make the transition to the modern world, as is clear in the story of the 'Cock Lane' ghost, who persuaded Samuel Johnson and a number of prominent clergymen that she was the shade of Frances Lynes, murdered by her lover. But the courts found the 'Cock Lane' ghost to be a fraud, suggesting the contentious nature of ghost belief in the Enlightenment." I'm not sure what you mean by a skeptic, but in this instance, according to both Kselman and Davies, Johnson was persuaded by the phenomenon, at least for some time. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnson's own notes, of course, seem to suggest that he did think that the particular demonstration he viewed was a fraud, so perhaps we may need a more nuanced view. E. J. Clery in The Rise of Supernatural Fiction, 1762–1800 (Cambridge University Press, 1999), a book whose first chapter is devoted to the Cock Lane ghost, seems to suggest in my very cursory reading that Johnson did believe in the "real supernatural" and came to the demonstration with an open mind. According to Clery, "James Boswell was intrigued by the reputation for credulity that clung to Johnson in the aftermath of the Cock Lane affair. What had led him to expose himself to public ridicule?" This is contrasted later with Horace Walpole's visit and subsequent account. Says Clery, "It goes without saying that Walpole is a sceptic; there is no hint of the interests that drew Johnson to become involved in the case, not even a shade of hesitation regarding the truth status of the phenomenon." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AFAIK all we have of that night's proceedings are Johnson's notes. Johnson was certainly a believer in spirits, he was a Christian, he had to believe in an afterlife. He was terrified of eternal, silent death, and also terrified of eternal damnation. He did not, however, believe that the Cock Lane ghost was anything but a fraud - in Life of Johnson, John Hawkins implied that Johnson's interest was supernatural, and that "by it he gave countenance to the credulity of the vulgar". Johnson thought that the Cock Lane ghost, if it was an imposture, was the worst kind - that it brought the afterlife into disrepute. Boswell (Grant argues) was "enamoured of the mysterious that he was constantly inveigling Johnson into discussing such matters". Johnson was indeed in a party of sceptics; This was a party that was not investigating the Ghost's accusations, but rather the Ghost itself. Aldrich, it seems to me, was extremely doubtful of Parsons' motives. The Captain had previously carried a gun with him, to shoot at the walls the Ghost was knocking at. John Bishop had a keen, analytical mind, and had previously exposed the lies of William Lauder, who had accused Milton of plagiarism. "A party of sceptics" doesn't mean "A party of non-believers".
- Now as for Johnson being a sceptic, I use that word in the sense that the man had an analytical mind - this as much is inferred by one of the quotes in the article, but to double-check I'm going to email Ottava. Parrot of Doom 09:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All I meant was that it is clear that some modern references don't think of Johnson as a skeptic. (Clery for one.) It is probably best not to use that word in the lead to describe Johnson unless one clarifies concurrently what one means by it. After all, one of the common meanings of skeptic (Webster's Unabridged) is "a person marked by skepticism regarding religion or religious principles." It doesn't seem, according to Clery, Johnson was that. In fact the word "skeptic" is hardly ever used as a synonym for "analytical." OED draft edition December 2009, has as the 4th meaning: 4. "Occas. used with reference to the etymological sense: A seeker after truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite convictions." (Johnson was clearly not a skeptic in the original Greek sense either, OED 1.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're probably correct. I'm going to retain the "ever a sceptic" for now as it fits the quote nicely (until I get more feedback), but I've changed "party of sceptics" to "A commission, whose members included Samuel Johnson, investigated the matter, and it concluded that the supposed haunting was a fraud." I prefer the OED's second meaning of the word, "One who doubts the validity of what claims to be knowledge in some particular department of inquiry (e.g. metaphysics, theology, natural science, etc.); popularly, one who maintains a doubting attitude with reference to some particular question or statement. Also, one who is habitually inclined rather to doubt than to believe any assertion or apparent fact that comes before him; a person of sceptical temper." Parrot of Doom 14:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a bit more about the feud between Churchill and Johnson, in the legacy section. The source mentions that this is one of the reasons why history sometimes considers Johnson to be credulous, but that might be construed as opinion, and I think to include all of that would be veering a bit off course. Parrot of Doom 23:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're probably correct. I'm going to retain the "ever a sceptic" for now as it fits the quote nicely (until I get more feedback), but I've changed "party of sceptics" to "A commission, whose members included Samuel Johnson, investigated the matter, and it concluded that the supposed haunting was a fraud." I prefer the OED's second meaning of the word, "One who doubts the validity of what claims to be knowledge in some particular department of inquiry (e.g. metaphysics, theology, natural science, etc.); popularly, one who maintains a doubting attitude with reference to some particular question or statement. Also, one who is habitually inclined rather to doubt than to believe any assertion or apparent fact that comes before him; a person of sceptical temper." Parrot of Doom 14:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All I meant was that it is clear that some modern references don't think of Johnson as a skeptic. (Clery for one.) It is probably best not to use that word in the lead to describe Johnson unless one clarifies concurrently what one means by it. After all, one of the common meanings of skeptic (Webster's Unabridged) is "a person marked by skepticism regarding religion or religious principles." It doesn't seem, according to Clery, Johnson was that. In fact the word "skeptic" is hardly ever used as a synonym for "analytical." OED draft edition December 2009, has as the 4th meaning: 4. "Occas. used with reference to the etymological sense: A seeker after truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite convictions." (Johnson was clearly not a skeptic in the original Greek sense either, OED 1.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: after some quick checks and tidying up, every image has alt text, is verifiably in the public domain, and uploaded to the appropriate site (albeit one can be moved to Commons). Jappalang (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Leaning to Support:
- "In about 1756–57 ..."
- Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not redundant to have "about" for a date range?
- Some sources offer different years, so I've generalised to highlight this. Else if I omitted the 'about', people might think they married in December/January. Parrot of Doom 10:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not redundant to have "about" for a date range?
- "... loaned his landlord £20."
It might be worthwhile to look into how much this is equivalent to modern currency (initially I thought a few thousands since the defaulter was arrested but...). This would lend context to Kent's pursuit of Parsons for "a relatively small sum of money" later (and the £50 fine).
- "... who reassured her that she would be forgiven for her sin."
"Sin" or "sins"? If the former, was it her cohabitation with Kent, or her pregnant unmarried state?- The source doesn't elaborate, but its probably the 'marriage', and not the pregnancy. Parrot of Doom 09:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "In October 1761 John Lynes began proceedings in Chancery against Kent."
What were the results?- Source doesn't say. Parrot of Doom 09:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe Johnson's quote in Exposure can be broken down and reworked into a paragraph that succinctly describes the scene with selected quotes from him?
- I think Johnson's quote is the source of what everyone writes happened on that night. I'd just be paraphrasing people who have re-written it, and it'd be about as long anyway. Parrot of Doom 09:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of Dickens and his work seems to be a throwaway statement; I am not certain what impact this event had on his work. Likewise, the mention of Historic Ghosts and Ghost Hunters (a book I think is fairly obscure) seems scant in context.- Yes, I'd wondered what to do with that, as its an unusual ending. I may just plonk Dickens in the "further reading" section. Parrot of Doom 09:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rightto. I did some search and see nothing for Historic Ghosts and Ghost Hunters, whose article is basically something of what your article is doing with the event. As for Dickens... mayhaps there be potential here...!
- Other Dickens: Pickwick to Chuzzlewit by John Bowen, Oxford University Press, p. 118:
- {About a character from
A Christmas CarolNicholas Nickleby} - She [Mrs Nickleby] remembers others' memories, and is haunted by others' hauntings-such as her great-great-grandfather's (possible) haunting by the Cock Lane Ghost (or Thirsty Woman of Tutbury).23
- [23] The Cock Lane Ghost also appears in A Tale of Two Cities and Dombey and Son. It is perhaps the archetypal meeting of literary celebrity and the returning dead. See E. J. Clery, The Rise of Supernatural Fiction 1762-1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 13-32. Mr Mortimer Knag, a 'literary' character, the author of much unpublished work, is described as 'ghostly' (221), and Nicholas works as a ghost-write for Crummies.
- Telegraphic realism: Victorian fiction and other information systems by Richard Menke, Stanford University Press, pp. 108–109:
- In addition to its recourse to hyperbole, the late eighteenth century resembles Dickens's present in its attention to the "messages" of "spirits," the rapping of Dr. Johnson's "Cock-lane ghost" setting the pattern for the modern "spirits of this very year last past (supernaturally deficient in originality)" (TTC, 5). The novel's first reference to revolution materializes as a contrast to such dubious emnations:" Mere messages ... any of the chickens of the Cock-lane brood" (TTC, 5-6).
- The Dickensian, Volumes 34-35:
- Edith M. Davies apparently wrote an article entitled "The Cock Lane Ghost" here. It might prove interesting to this article, judging from the focus of the journal.
- So it seems there should be material (and fairly respectable and reliable ones too) to establish a context for Dickens in this article and to flesh it (significance) out further. The other book, however, looks like a candidate to be dropped. Jappalang (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a couple more Dickens books, along with a quote. I know there's probably something to be said about Dickens and spirits (Christmas Carol etc), but I don't know anything about him, and will therefore have to do a bit of sniffing around to put his interest in the Cock Lane ghost into context. Parrot of Doom 14:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fear there might be a misunderstanding of my issue here. What I am looking for is not a listing of Dickens's works to show weightage, but a reasoning of why Dickens considered the Cock Lane ghost to be of prominence enough to put it in his works (or a critical commentary of how the event was used in his books). Thus, listing its appearances is not enough. Exposition/analysis of "archetypal meeting" and "late eighteenth century resembles Dickens's present in its attention to the "messages" of "spirits," would be better. Jappalang (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No misunderstanding, see the second half of my post above :) I'm already on it, believe me. Parrot of Doom 23:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, tis a misunderstanding on my part then, no harm done. Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Best I can do for now Parrot of Doom 13:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It helps a bit; at least it establishes Dickens's as a man who believes in the supernatural and Cock Lane seems to have left some impression on him (rather than a popularist inclusion or something). I believe more can be done (the Dickensian source hangs in my mind), but I think this is sufficient with the more accessible sources; so supporting now. Jappalang (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Best I can do for now Parrot of Doom 13:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, tis a misunderstanding on my part then, no harm done. Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No misunderstanding, see the second half of my post above :) I'm already on it, believe me. Parrot of Doom 23:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fear there might be a misunderstanding of my issue here. What I am looking for is not a listing of Dickens's works to show weightage, but a reasoning of why Dickens considered the Cock Lane ghost to be of prominence enough to put it in his works (or a critical commentary of how the event was used in his books). Thus, listing its appearances is not enough. Exposition/analysis of "archetypal meeting" and "late eighteenth century resembles Dickens's present in its attention to the "messages" of "spirits," would be better. Jappalang (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a couple more Dickens books, along with a quote. I know there's probably something to be said about Dickens and spirits (Christmas Carol etc), but I don't know anything about him, and will therefore have to do a bit of sniffing around to put his interest in the Cock Lane ghost into context. Parrot of Doom 14:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rightto. I did some search and see nothing for Historic Ghosts and Ghost Hunters, whose article is basically something of what your article is doing with the event. As for Dickens... mayhaps there be potential here...!
- Yes, I'd wondered what to do with that, as its an unusual ending. I may just plonk Dickens in the "further reading" section. Parrot of Doom 09:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, I had a joy reading the article (the prose felt great to me) and twas an interesting case. Jappalang (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are no sources, then the issues I raised cannot be addressed—so stricken. As for Johnson's quote and the date range, I am not hard up on them, but I leave unstruck for others to weigh on.
The last point (the two book mentions) is more concerning, andI will supportafter it is addressed.Jappalang (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Jappalang (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: 2c. Where, pray tell, is "Stroud?" ; where is "James Clarke & Co." located? ; Are you sure your Penguin is from London and not Harmondsworth? Is this the actual title, "Volume 12 of Cambridge studies in Romanticism " or is the title "C. s. in Rom." and the volume is 12? Date consistency problem with ISO: 1838–39. 39th month? Consider fixing by going non ISO with "retrieved 2009-12-21" Nice citation of pre 19th century publication data!
- Stroud is at Stroud, the same as London is at London, or Cambridge is at Cambridge. I've added a location for James Clarke & Co. The Penguin book - I don't know, I don't own the book. I don't consider it even slightly important. No, the actual title is not "volume 12 xxx" which is why I've used the work field. The book is as titled and is part of a series, as also stated. There isn't a date consistency problem with 1838-39, nobody will assume that 39 means month, so that does not need fixing. Parrot of Doom 11:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Extensive comment regarding price series over time. CPI is not the indicator to use here. Loans are not part of the consumption bundle of an unskilled working class household which is the base measure of CPI. Measuring Worth has this explained quite nicely under which measure to use. A CPI can't reflect the decision to loan monies, as loans are not part of the standardised working class consumption bundle that goes into a price series... Especially not at the massive sum of £20 in the 1700s. "if you are wondering how "affordable" this would be to the average person, use the GDP per capita, or a wage or average earnings index. For the US, we have an index of unskilled wage and for the UK we have an index of average earnings." ("Which indicator," Measuring Worth) 1759 £20 => 2008 (last available year) ~£29000 using average earnings. This is a far better indicator of the massiveness of a £20 loan; Its also a far better immediate class indicator of the status of a usurer in the mid 18th century in the UK. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Haven't we been here before? Didn't you recently offer to write something on this topic? Have you yet done so? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've got Wage price series as a stub. This was fairly specific to the issue of wage / price series though which was the first issue. Have to think about rename and expand if we need it to deal with all historical time series. "Value time series" would be controversial, as value is a measure specific to Political Economy but not current economics. "Price time series" might incorrectly focus it on retail or consumer prices, and leave out wages, GDP, earnings, etc. It came up on Neville Chamberlain's second FAC because of the issue of measuring (apparently unrealised losses of) capital over time. Perhaps I should write it out of Measuring Worth's available series first, explaining the series utility according to MW's own explanations, then expand into their series specific essays, then finally use their sources from their lit reviews. But just quickly, given that this is about non-consumption spending outside of capitalised money, average earnings is the better series than CPI. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In your judgement. We'll just have to wait for your reliably sourced conclusions. To be clear, I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I've just no tolerance for bullshit. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lawrence H. Officer and Samuel H. Williamson, "Measures of Worth," MeasuringWorth, 2008. Is an adequate statement. Hell, there's the article title. Measuring economic worth over time it is. Its a bullshit area because the worth of money is not expressed in terms of a single type of money, but a variety of uses of money, including consumption, income relativities, and proportion of social product dedicated to production / investment. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm well aware of that, but your solution to this problem, which seems to be to omit any conversions at all, is less than helpful to a reader. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lawrence H. Officer and Samuel H. Williamson, "Measures of Worth," MeasuringWorth, 2008. Is an adequate statement. Hell, there's the article title. Measuring economic worth over time it is. Its a bullshit area because the worth of money is not expressed in terms of a single type of money, but a variety of uses of money, including consumption, income relativities, and proportion of social product dedicated to production / investment. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In your judgement. We'll just have to wait for your reliably sourced conclusions. To be clear, I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I've just no tolerance for bullshit. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've got Wage price series as a stub. This was fairly specific to the issue of wage / price series though which was the first issue. Have to think about rename and expand if we need it to deal with all historical time series. "Value time series" would be controversial, as value is a measure specific to Political Economy but not current economics. "Price time series" might incorrectly focus it on retail or consumer prices, and leave out wages, GDP, earnings, etc. It came up on Neville Chamberlain's second FAC because of the issue of measuring (apparently unrealised losses of) capital over time. Perhaps I should write it out of Measuring Worth's available series first, explaining the series utility according to MW's own explanations, then expand into their series specific essays, then finally use their sources from their lit reviews. But just quickly, given that this is about non-consumption spending outside of capitalised money, average earnings is the better series than CPI. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Haven't we been here before? Didn't you recently offer to write something on this topic? Have you yet done so? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Extensive comment regarding price series over time. CPI is not the indicator to use here. Loans are not part of the consumption bundle of an unskilled working class household which is the base measure of CPI. Measuring Worth has this explained quite nicely under which measure to use. A CPI can't reflect the decision to loan monies, as loans are not part of the standardised working class consumption bundle that goes into a price series... Especially not at the massive sum of £20 in the 1700s. "if you are wondering how "affordable" this would be to the average person, use the GDP per capita, or a wage or average earnings index. For the US, we have an index of unskilled wage and for the UK we have an index of average earnings." ("Which indicator," Measuring Worth) 1759 £20 => 2008 (last available year) ~£29000 using average earnings. This is a far better indicator of the massiveness of a £20 loan; Its also a far better immediate class indicator of the status of a usurer in the mid 18th century in the UK. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I'm not about to disagree with you because you obviously have a greater interest in these matters than I do. The figure is only there as a rough guide - it doesn't have to be exact, but I want a figure in there nonetheless. It just has to give people a general idea of what £20 was worth. So, I checked the value of £20 here, and it gave me:
- In 2007, £20 0s 0d from 1760 is worth £2,817.02 using the retail price index. £27,382.55 using average earnings.
- So I'm going to remove the template that's in there, use £27,000 (in 2007), in the article, and cite it to "Lawrence H. Officer, "Purchasing Power of British Pounds from 1264 to Present," MeasuringWorth, 2009. URL http://www.measuringworth.com/ppoweruk/". Would that be better? Parrot of Doom 11:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with suggestions below:
- I'm not going to oppose over this, but the linking of common terms like inn and and post office will get this article on Tony1's list of ridiculous links.
- Fanny meanwhile went to stay with her brother, at Lynham This is presumably another brother, which might be better anchored with his name.
- The source doesn't elaborate, so I've changed it to "one of her brothers" Parrot of Doom 01:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it just cheekiness that makes you name a section "Fanny" in a Cock Lane article?
- I don't know what you mean...whistles... I did however consider naming the "Haunting" section as "Scratching Fanny". If that doesn't translate well in the US, you should know that Fanny means something else entirely in the UK... Parrot of Doom 01:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know what it means, minge commander. Works just as well with the American meaning of bum. --Moni3 (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what you mean...whistles... I did however consider naming the "Haunting" section as "Scratching Fanny". If that doesn't translate well in the US, you should know that Fanny means something else entirely in the UK... Parrot of Doom 01:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignorant American that I am, I don't know the difference between 3 guineas and 20 pounds.
- Guinea is linked, there was a price comparison in the article but its gone, I don't know who removed it. Look above, there's a discussion on this very issue. Parrot of Doom 01:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- her sister Ann Lynes (who lived at Pall Mall) attended the funeral, which took place at St John's. If Pall Mall and St. John's has some significance, it is not readily apparent what it is. Is it really necessary?
- No connection really, it was to highlight that her sister lived in London and not Norfolk (which is some distance away). I've clarified that. Parrot of Doom 01:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- *titter* thou are not the ghost of my Fanny!!
- Shame on thee! Parrot of Doom 01:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In all, an interesting article. Suggestions are just that. Do what you wish with them. Let me know if you have any questions. --Moni3 (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with comments:
- William Kent, a usurer from Norfolk, Richard Parsons, a parish clerk, and his daughter Elizabeth. This sentence is ambiguous as it is not clear whose daughter Elizabeth was.
- The story became a focus of controversy between the Methodist and Anglican churches, and is frequently referenced in contemporary literature. This sentence is too vague (even for the lead).
- He refused, and following a brief argument, the supporters left. Who were those supporters?
- Elizabeth his wife to be imprisoned one year; Was the wife of Mr. Parsons also Elizabeth? (So there were three Elizabeths!) If she was, this should be mentioned at the beginning of the article to avoid a later confusion.
- I am actually interested in the wooden board used by Elizabeth to make sounds. It is mentioned only briefly in the article (Her maids then witnessed Elizabeth concealing on her person a small piece of wood, 6 by 4 inches (150 by 100 mm), and informed the investigators.). Can more information be provided? Why, for instance, she was able to conceal it for such a long time?
Ruslik_Zero 13:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:25, 17 January 2010 [14].
- Nominator(s): RB88 (T) 04:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RB88 (T) 04:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Media review: Three images:
- File:Is This It.JPG: Album cover (fair use), used as main infobox image.
- Usage: Good, standard.
- Rationale: Good.
- Alt text: Good.
- File:IsthisitUS.jpg: Alternative (U.S.) album cover (fair use), used as secondary infobox image.
- Usage: Good. Primary cover for main/home media market; sourced critical commentary on art in main text.
- Rationale: Decent, but "Purpose of use" field should be improved to clarify significance.
- Alt text: Good.
- File:113355527 25c7280cc7 b.jpg: Commons image of band in concert, used in main text.
- License: CC-by-SA-2.0. Verified.
- Quality: Acceptable for main text.
- Alt text: Good.
One audio sample:
- File:TSBL.ogg: 23.8-second sample of track from topic album (fair use).
- Usage: Good. Well-chosen sample of non-single album track, with critical commentary on both lyrics and musical composition.
- Technical aspects: Good.
- Rationale: Good.—DCGeist (talk) 08:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks DCGeist. One of the most thorough media reviews I've seen. I tightened up the US cover a bit. Great job. RB88 (T) 17:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gil Norton never worked with Husker Du. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DONE RB88 (T) 17:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment Comments Support by PL290 (media licensing and cites not checked). Looks good on a quick glance. My impression is that this This is a comprehensive article and the prose is sound. I hope to find time to look more closely and will add further comments if possible.
There are two lone subsections. In both cases the significant body of text preceding the "lone" subsection should acquire its own subheading.
PL290 (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DONE RB88 (T) 22:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "With support from personal "guru" JP Bowerstock" - this use of "guru" in quotes hints at something without making it explicit, and hence is not really encyclopedic.
- Used "mentor". RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "the three songs created were scrapped and were not used on Is This It." - somewhat tautological (since, if the songs were scrapped, they could not have been used) though I think I see the point intended; perhaps this could be recast along the lines of "the three songs originally created for Is This It were scrapped".
- DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "and formed a good collaborating team with the producer." - again somewhat tautological combination of "collaborating" with "team" - perhaps "a good collaborative relationship".
- DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "both parties organized a listening session with the musical material Hammond, Jr. and Casablancas had brought" - it seems to me that unless I missed one, there is only one Hammond, and so once Hammond, Jr. has been introduced, "Hammond" would suffice and be clearer for the remainder of the article.
- DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The transfer from the two loud guitars and the rumble of the bass picked up by the drum kit microphones was not eliminated on the advice of Moretti" - but rather, eliminated for another reason? Comma after eliminated would do it.
- DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The record was streamed on Australian websites by the band's distributor BMG and remained available to listen even after the CD release" - the streamed record did not listen - perhaps available to listen "to", or just available, etc.
- Used "for listening". RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Japanese release date of August 22 occurred after two one-off shows [...] in the country" - the word "occurred" here seems to imply a chance happening and hence loses the intended point that it was (I assume) deliberately timed to follow the shows. Was it deliberate timing?
- DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Moretti has called it a "horrible coincidence" that the band members deeply regret" - coming after "I found something even cooler" merely not surfacing in time to use different artwork, it's left unclear exactly what is "horrible" and "deeply regretted" about the foregoing sequence of events.
- Came in PR as well. That's all he said. I removed as it's not that necessary. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ""Is This It" is The Strokes' closest attempt to a ballad." - it just me, or is there a persuasive but non-grammatical blurring of "closest attempt" with "closest to a ballad"?
- Simplified to "attempt at a ballad". RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "an upbeat, singalong chorus that is appended by a technically difficult guitar solo" - I don't think you can use "appended" like that! One thing is appended to another. Perhaps recast or use another word.
- DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "as well as danceable drumming patterns that evoke the sound of primitive 1980s drum machines" - danceable is somewhat subjective and the sentence appears to work well without it. Consider removing or rephrasing to be more encyclopedic.
- DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 2006, Is This It was named at number 48 by The Observer" - perhaps e.g. "ranked" rather than named?
- DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 2009, Is This It was named as the best record of the 2000s by NME [...], and at number two, behind Radiohead's Kid A, by Rolling Stone" - again, "ranked" etc. rather than "named" seems to fit what Rolling Stone did
- DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Uncut named it at number five" - same again.
- DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PL290 (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your efficient response to the above comments which have all now been addressed. PL290 (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers for the comments. RB88 (T) 02:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments Big and small, with everything in-between. I'll add more as I think of them.
- You only need the earliest release date in the lead. Save the release history details for the article body.
- DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the lead, it would flow better if you discussed the making of the albu first before listing its chart positions.
- It's come up before, but I use WP:LEAD always: "The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader, without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time context. Also, it must establish the boundaries of the content of the article." RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also find it odd that the cover art change is mentioned after the album release, commercial success, and world tour.
- Done in conjunction with your packaging split comment. The staggered release means a bit of disjunct, but in the current order it flows well, i.e. Packaging and then Content.
- Is "hyped" the best NPOV word choice here. Personally I'd say it was "hyped", but I'm not sure that's the best word to use for Wiki purposes.
- Used "Promoted". RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, article body now. The "Origins" section contains far too much setup. Keep what's necessary for context and move the rest (details like band members meeting when they were schoolboys, family members introducing them to certain bands) to The Strokes. i'd say more or else you could integrate parts of the first paragraph into the second and go with that.
- I removed some padding but I disagree with the general sentiment. I think it's a nice, measured intro on how they got to the studio, especially considering it's a debut album and not a second or third done whilst on tour in two years. Debut albums tend to be the "life albums", so a bit of history and formative stages is required. Trust me there was a lot more I could have included. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the "Studio Sessions" section, you need to clarify the band's relationship with Rough Trade after they signed to RCA. Did they leave the label? Were they signed to Rough Trade in one country and RCA in another?
- DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence "The studio is located in a basement with poor lighting; candles were often used during recording" is a bit choppy. How about "Because the studio was located in a basement with poor lighting, candles were often used during recording"?
- Removed the candles bit, not that necessary. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "formed a good collaborating team" Another odd phrase. Maybe formed a "good collaboration" would work better.
- DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "To show the tones and energy they liked". Are you sure the source means "tone" as in intervals on a music scale? Judging by the context of the sentence is seems like they might mean "tone" as in "mood". You might be better off just delinking the word.
- DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "sculpted" is a very muso journo phrase. Literally, musicians don't sculpt. Suggest rephrasing.
- DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm noticing quite a bit of passive voice. Example: "During six weeks of exhaustive sessions, the emphasis was placed on The Strokes' gritty sound". Who placed the emphasis? Try and cut down as much as possible.
- Weeded out what I could find, within reason. RB88 (T) 23:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Raphael mixed as he went along to maintain control of the record until the final mastering stage and to show The Strokes a final product as soon as the band finished performing a track" Seems like it coud use some commas.
- DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is mentioning that the band revealed the tracklisting on May 15 noteworthy?
- Along those same lines: "'Hard to Explain' was named as the album's first single with a release date of June 25 to coincide with the tour". We're not a news site; we don't need to indicate every instance when things were announced. We need to know when they happened. Simply state that "Hard to Explain" was released in June as the album's first single.
- For both above: It's the promotion section. It essentially has to show how the band and label created marketing and excitement for the album release and a basic timeframe with a few dates is necessary to give a more accurate perspective. Both also flow well with the tour comment. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Moretti suffered an awkward fall". Is there such as thing as an unawkward fall?
- Well, you could fall quite simply on your backside without much fuss or you could fall on top of your wrist or without using your arms in a reflex motion, the last two which I would qualify as "awkward". RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Recommend splitting off "Packaging" into its own section; it comes off as a non sequitor as a subsection of "Release". Alternatively, given the cover image change was such a big deal, possibly merge/integrate the information together with the rest of the "Release" section.
- DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason "Lyrics" are above "Composition"? Why not just integrate the two (particular since you go down the tracklisting when discussing the songs)?
- It's more of a personal preference really. I also like splitting them for a nicer article and for the reader to specifically understand both facets separately. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "It had notable success in Scandinavia" Does the source say that? You could do without it and not harm the sentence at all.
- DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The record was listed at number 71 on the UK Albums Chart for 2001". I assume you mean the year-end chart? Also, it's awkward that the Scandinavia info is in between two sentences about the album's success in the UK.
- DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "In contrast, Jon Monks of Stylus gave the album a rating of C+, one of the lowest that it received". That last part isn't necessary. People can determine that themselves if they want to.
- DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the influence section: any chance you can find information about bands directly citing the record as an influence?
- No luck here. I doubt any band of the last decade would cite an album released in 2001 for fear of being called copyists and losing street cred. RB88 (T) 23:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, a little bit of luck. RB88 (T) 02:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "--two places higher than the The Velvet Underground's debut LP The Velvet Underground & Nico—" Does the source cited make a big deal out of this? If not, throw it out.
- Well, considering earlier in the article we've talked about influences and transcending them, it seems a nice bit of information. Also to break the monotony of just listing lists. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's undue emphasis. After all, you mention other influences on the band, but aren't noting how Is This It outranked those records (which you shouldn't, by the way). WesleyDodds (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, took it out. RB88 (T) 01:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's undue emphasis. After all, you mention other influences on the band, but aren't noting how Is This It outranked those records (which you shouldn't, by the way). WesleyDodds (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, considering earlier in the article we've talked about influences and transcending them, it seems a nice bit of information. Also to break the monotony of just listing lists. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Same thing with the NME and Rolling Stone decade lists. I'm sure it outranked a slew of other notable albums, but it's not important to draw attention to it.
- I like to include the second placed album it beat or the first placed album it was beaten by. It brightens up the listing lists process and also gives a perspective about the list and the pulication. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I think "Release history" sections are worthless and you certainly aren't obligated to have one. However, if you do insist on having one, you should shore up the references. I don't necessary know how catalog numbers work, but those numbers listed are only part of the numbers I see in certain refs. Also, I'm not quite sure all those refs specifically state that that catalog number was specifically released for that region. Once again, double check the sources and weed out what isn't soundly supported. Or just chuck the whole thing and do without it.
- I'm a bit puzzled by this. I checked the references and everything is in order. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, here's the one big problem the article currently has that needs to be immediately addressed. For the UK chart positions, you cite ""UK Top 40 Hit Database". The Official UK Charts Company / EveryHit. http://www.everyhit.com/." Every Hit is in no way affiliated with the official UK charts. It's run by some guy who owns a lot of singles; see the About page on the website. That's not the sort of source you want to rely on, particularly when you can ring up User:JD554 and ask him to cite the chart positions from his far more verifiability policy-friendly UK chart books (he has one that goes up to 2006, I believe). He's always willing to help out with that sort of thing, so it shouldn't be much of a bother to address this point.
- EveryHit's reliability has been proven time and time again. In fact, it was JD who gave me sources to use during one of my FACs and someone else's too. But, here you go again: Used by Reuters, Used in Parliament!!, and even in Norway. I did remove the UK charts bit though. RB88 (T) 23:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, you have access to offical documentation. Between a fansite and an offical book of chart positions, go with the book. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I think it's transcended the "fansite" tag when it was used in Parliament. But I've still got the British charts book from Talking Heads (and a whole lot of fines, too). It's now up. RB88 (T) 01:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, you have access to offical documentation. Between a fansite and an offical book of chart positions, go with the book. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- EveryHit's reliability has been proven time and time again. In fact, it was JD who gave me sources to use during one of my FACs and someone else's too. But, here you go again: Used by Reuters, Used in Parliament!!, and even in Norway. I did remove the UK charts bit though. RB88 (T) 23:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the last item, there's no major outstanding problems. Overall, I am pleased with the quality of the article. Address these comments and I'll be ready to support the article's nomination. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments— FYI, I like this album a lot. Reviewing the lead for now:
- "first released on July 30, 2001 in Australia by BMG, a distributor acting on behalf of RCA Records, the band's primary label"—seems like too much (unimportant) information. I suggest removing all mention of the record labels there, and moving the release date to the first sentence: "Is This It is the debut studio album by American indie rock band The Strokes, released in July 2001." The 2002 reissue bit can go as well. Instead, mention how RCA released the thing with a different tracklisting ('cause of 9/11) and album cover a few months after the Rough Trade version (if necessary).
- DONE all removals and added the track change. RB88 (T) 08:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "It is considered a zeitgeist-defining moment for the musical landscape of the 2000s"—What is "It" here? A little vague: do you refer to the album or the release of the album? Also, since you discuss the legacy in the third paragraph, why not move the sentence there?
- DONE. It was added at PR, especially because WP:LEAD says "Also, it must establish the boundaries of the content of the article." RB88 (T) 08:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "western English-speaking world" is very vague. Check out its article, did the album go platinum in all those countries?!
- DONE away with the vagueness. RB88 (T) 08:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't put my finger on it, but the second paragraph reads very choppily to me. Especially "details young life and encounters in cities like New York". I also don't see why the three singles need to be mentioned there. Songs like the title track and "The Modern Age" also revolve around the same themes. (I have gone ahead and tweaked the second paragraph)
- Well, you've sorted it out yourself and I tidied up.
- You haven't exactly described why the record is considered so influential in the thing. Namely, the whole "Return to Rock" thing The Strokes championed along with The White Stripes; without this The Libertines, Franz Ferdinand and Arctic Monkeys probably wouldn't have flourished so much. (I prefer you give specific info like this rather vague statements about it being zeitgeist-defining)—indopug (talk) 07:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Zeitgeist-defining" is not vague. For one, it was specifically used by The Guardian and covers everything, from NYC's scene, music, attire etc which are mentioned by all the other sources. Specifying just the Return to Rock bands would not be summative in the lead and also incorrect. It did much more than that, including changing the music industry and pop music. RB88 (T) 08:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a Spin book that can possibly add to this, given there's a chapter on the "Return of Rock" (my god, isn't that pretentious?) in it. I'll need to double-check it. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TBH, I think I've covered all bases with regards to Legacy, but it'd be nice to add Spin's "Return to Rock" phrase as a tying sentence. RB88 (T) 14:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a Spin book that can possibly add to this, given there's a chapter on the "Return of Rock" (my god, isn't that pretentious?) in it. I'll need to double-check it. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Zeitgeist-defining" is not vague. For one, it was specifically used by The Guardian and covers everything, from NYC's scene, music, attire etc which are mentioned by all the other sources. Specifying just the Return to Rock bands would not be summative in the lead and also incorrect. It did much more than that, including changing the music industry and pop music. RB88 (T) 08:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You use only a single source when it comes to discussing the lyrics (the Roach book). Surely this section can be expanded considering how acclaimed and written-about Casablancas' lyrics were?—indopug (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's yer lot I'm afraid. All interviews and biopics focused on image rather than content. If it wasn't for the SOS article, I think I would have struggled for the recording info as well. Like for the whole article (and all my articles), searched Google Archives, music publications (not just the obvious ones), fansites, and the relevant books. If you can find me a source about lyrics, I'd be shocked. At one point, I was thinking of merging Content into Studio sessions due to its thinness. Thank God for the bits of info from Roach. RB88 (T) 00:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the sources you've used in the article? For example, the Rolling Stone review quotes a lot of the lyrics, and tries to grapple what Casablancas is trying to say. Similarly, you might find snippets in the all the reviews/interviews. You could also use the RS review for general descriptions of the band's music—"The Strokes are obsessed with rhythm, and at times their approach is more like that of a soul or funk band than a rock band: Each player, even the drummer, pushes at the melody from a different rhythmic angle until there are no more angles left to explore. Albert Hammond Jr. and Nick Valensi's interlocking, incessant rhythm-guitar parts free bassist Nikolai Fraiture to sweeten songs such as "Someday," "Last Nite" and the title track with graceful, Motown-like countermelodies."—indopug (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I argue that reviews shouldn't be used for general descriptions of the band's music, because reviews aren't held to the same criteria as a interviewer or someone writing an article. The point of a review is to provide critical opinion, and thus they should be relegated to the critical reception section. That reminds me: I noticed there was something from the legacy section pulled from a PopMatters concert review. You should junk that, because the writer is merely setting up his review, and the review is not an objective look at the band's legacy. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is exactly why I didn't use reviews. I knew you were gonna pipe in at some point with that. As for the PopMatters thing, I disagree. "The review is not an objective look at the band's legacy" makes no sense. All attributed quotes in Legacy are subjective points of view, often from subjective lists. It doesn't matter if it's a concert review because it doesn't mean what he wrote or elements of it are not true. If you read the review, the first half is totally historical and about the New York scene. So, historical and his opinion, and considering he works for a notable and reliable source, it merits inclusion.RB88 (T) 11:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- RE: the PopMatters review. It's the opener for a review about a concert performance from 2006 (a performance completely unrelated to the album), which is meant purely as editorial, not hardcore journalism. This is a concert review, not an article about the legacy of Is This It. It's inappropriate to quote this particular review for this purpose. You have plenty of other more appropriate sources in that same section that directly address the topic at hand, anyways. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<-- All that I've read above is your personal, subjective decision about biopics, what constitutes one, and the differences in journalism. The fact of the matter is that PopMatters and its writers and content fulfil both WP:N and WP:R. This is what he wrote in the first historical part of the concert review:
"For those steeped in the band-a-minute scene of present-day New York, it's easy to forget that, at the turn-of-the-century, not only did the local scene not compare to today's, but that there wasn't really a scene at all. Circa 2000, NYC was a pretty musically barren place to be - a city with plenty of rock n' roll history, but very little in the way of a present. And then, with an unassuming 11-track debut album, five city kids in thrift-store clothes came along and changed everything. Since the release of Is This It?, New York has not only returned to its glory as a hotspot for cutting-edge music, but has actually been elevated once more to a prime focus of international attention.What the Strokes did, however, goes hand in hand with how they did it. It wasn't by reinventing what it means to be from NYC that the quintet gained the spotlight, but rather by reminding us what it always meant. By capturing the essence of precursors like the Velvet Underground, the Ramones, Blondie, and Television and reconstituting it for a new generation, the band became the sole contemporary heir to the very same lineage that put the city on the rock map in the first place. And now, just a few short years later, with the band members still not even out of their 20s, the Strokes stand as the fathers (or at least godfathers) to modern New York music, with everyone from Brooklyn to London citing them as an influence. So where does that leave an essentially young band that, just five years on, is already viewed as the established order, or the soon-to-be old guard?"
And this what I wrote: Doug Levy of PopMatters suggests that, through Is This It, The Strokes created New York City's post-millennial music scene and returned it to a cutting-edge glory, "with everyone from Brooklyn to London citing them as an influence".
I don't see any problem whatsoever with sourcing apart from your personal opinion about what constitutes journalism. RB88 (T) 21:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a review about Is This It. This is a review about a show five years after the album came out, with the author using his opinion on the record's impact to set up the review. The piece as a whole is not directly about the album and shouldn't be treated as authoritative, because that's not the point of the piece. This is like quoting the first paragraph of a review for a concert promoting Kid A to describe the legacy of The Bends. It's especially striking if you compare it to the other references in the section. There's best-of album list, best-of album list, best-of album list . . . and then an excerpt from a concert review from years later. You shouldn't have to rely on a concert review that has nothing directly to do with the album for statements about the album's impact. Find something more relevant. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh for... Alright, used NME instead. You better support. RB88 (T) 16:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments
- Composition: I notice that although you do track-by-track analysis of the music, you are not highlighting the overall trends on the album. If you don't want to use reviews per Wesley, there is this CMJ article I found in Google Books: here. In particular, Valensi's quote: "there's no bullshit, no gimmicks, no tricks to try to get you to like the song. We don't put in a guitar solo just to have one." Also, CMJ's description "nervous energy pop with a romantic slouch" seems apt (obviously, there might more statements in the sources you have already used).
- I'll add 1 or 2 quotes like for the lyrics section. BRB. RB88 (T) 11:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DONE. RB88 (T) 12:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you say most of the sources concentrate on their 'image', we probably should devote more to their fashion-sense as well. I just see "skinny jeans and guitars" . . .
- Well, the image has to be in relation to their and THIS album's influence as it is in the Legacy section. It can't just be about them. Remember that it is an article about the album, not the band. As I've said above, I think I've covered all bases in terms of summation and comprehensiveness there: music, attire, industry. RB88 (T) 11:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The track listing is pretty simple, is that template really necessary?—indopug (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's come up before. TBH, I think readability and presentation often get neglected on Wikipedia. Yes, it is simple but the alternative is just a whole lot of quote marks, dashes, and numbers that will make reader's brains vomit. The article is neater this way. RB88 (T) 11:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I've come a bit late after a request, and it looks like the problems I found have been brought up and addressed by others already. The article looks very good, and I support the nomination. Timmeh 02:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers. RB88 (T) 03:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am close to supporting, but have a few final quibbles—
- you continue to use "English-speaking world" even though it is such a vague descriptor (per its own article, it covers so many countries. The Strokes didn't revolutionise all those markets).
- DONE RB88 (T) 11:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Move "zeitgeist-defining moment for the musical landscape of the 2000s" to the third paragraph of the lead where you discuss the impact of the album.
- DONE RB88 (T) 11:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- while I agree that Is This It did influence many bands, and started some hip fashion trends, I am not so sure it was "a zeitgeist-defining moment for the musical landscape of the 2000s", or why "record is considered crucial in the development ... of the post-millennial music industry in the English-speaking world". The Legacy section only explains bands influenced by the album, and musical styles that became popular because of it. This does not translate to changing the music industry itself. As an alternative, could you add a quote in the lead instead that neatly sums up its influence? At the same time, it wouldn't like Wikipedia itself is stating that the album changed the music industry; it is an opinion that we would be attributing to somebody else.
- That's why I said "it is considered". The lead is meant to summarise the text and I'd rather not add a quote. I did tone it down a bit however. I think influencing bands, scenes, trends, and charts is clearly influencing the music industry. Plus there's a direct quote from the Boston Herald about it. It's not just about about band influence the Legacy section. RB88 (T) 11:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That pic of the band is awful. How about this one instead?—indopug (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DONE, but not that one. RB88 (T) 11:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- you continue to use "English-speaking world" even though it is such a vague descriptor (per its own article, it covers so many countries. The Strokes didn't revolutionise all those markets).
Few more I found while copy-editing yesterday:
- "After signing with RCA, The Strokes received full artistic control from the company." and "The producer and the band were given complete control only when Casablancas persuaded the delegate..."—contradiction?
- DONE RB88 (T) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Raphael mixed as he went along to maintain control of the record until the final mastering stage, and to show The Strokes a final product as soon as the band finished performing a track"—needs a bit of a rewrite 'cause I needed to read it a couple of times to let the meaning of the sentence sink in.
- DONE RB88 (T) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "A typical concert set-up of The Strokes from 2006"—how do you know it was typical?
- DONE RB88 (T) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you modify the second paragraph of Critical reception so that it doesn't mention that The Strokes were influenced by the Velvets and Television thrice.
- DONE RB88 (T) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Music recording sales certification, platinum and gold should in lowercase in the middle of sentences.
- DONE RB88 (T) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "extremely favorable"—'extremely' generally has negative connotations, doesn't it? I'd much prefer a blander term like 'very'.
- I've never heard the argument that an adverb like "extremely" inherently has positive or negative connotations. It depends what follows it as is the case with adverbs. I think it's fine. I use very/highly for over 80s on Metacritic and extremely for 90+. RB88 (T) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NME blog piece that says the album is overrated and sucks, and has an awful legacy. Worthy of usage? (you do use one that calls it album of the decade)
- NME's consensus as a publication is that this is the next best thing since sliced bread. That's a minor view within the publication. Also, the section is called Legacy and not Non-legacy. The wide consensus is also extremely favourable. Plus, I even squeezed in the negative comments about encouraging bad copyists. RB88 (T) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The July and August 2001 cover art"—not very clear what you are referring to here, esp. confusing since you bring dates into the picture. How about just call it the "cover art", and call the other one the "US cover"?—indopug (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I get the point, but it's the lesser of all evils. Anything else (I don't even know how to replace it properly) would confuse the reader, mess the flow, and ruin the timeframe. I think it's OK especially coming straight after the Release dates a paragraph before. RB88 (T) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—indopug (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Took you long enough. Cheers. If Wes doesn't support, I'm going round his house and smashing his virtual knees in. He'll be in bits (geddit?). I'll get my coat. RB88 (T) 22:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overlinked
- Why is "produced" linked? Is "singles" an uncommon word? Who doesn't know what a "drum kit" is? "Amplifiers"? Under "Personnel", I can't see much that needs linking: hand up who doesn't know what a guitar is, or drums, or photography? Several items are linked for the second time. Tony (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect Tony, I don't think it's overlinked. I went through it just now for the 1786th time. Producer and amplifier are fairly technical words or that need a better understanding by non-experts. Things like singles and drum kit may be more common, but I do write my articles for the whole spectrum of hermits to cognoscenti and the linked pages have fairly music-specific text. (A time springs to mind when someone said to link DJ cos he didn't know what they did!) As for Personnel, the convention for albums is to link the materials (and even the names sometimes) for reader ease. But I'm willing to delink them if you're that bothered. RB88 (T) 13:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only outstanding issue to me is that when I checked the references upon my initial review, it didn't seem like some details in the Release History section were supported by the references. However, as I'm currently stuck using a shoddy public computer, it's a bit of a hassle to load more page windows to double check the refs. Can others take a look at the section? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And as I said before, all cites support the codes even if you cross reference them. It's very easy, just click through. I don't understand what's so hard. (But maybe these straws are warming materials in the winter.) The European one you mentioned on my talk page is from Ultratop, the Belgian body, which has the Pan-European chart rankings next to the codes. But, I also found a nice shiny EU flag source to keep you happy. See, same code!. RB88 (T) 15:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do cites 83 and 85 verify the exact release dates you listed in the table? Furthermore, can you inline cite all the release dates? WesleyDodds (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The cites are not about the dates. I don't think dates need that in the same way as track listing doesn't. It just happens/exists. Codes however are more specific and need refs (although you could argue the same there). I'm just thorough and like to source them. RB88 (T) 05:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to be thorough, cite everything in the table. Also, the catalogue code would be listed on the album itself (therefore being a self-reference item like a tracklist), but the full release date wouldn't (at most you get a year on the copyright notice; I don't think I've ever seen a full release date on album packaging). Thus the latter needs an inline citation more than the former. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I took it all out. I can't be arsed with this anymore. Major markets are covered in prose anyway. I know you've been campaigning to have those lists removed everywhere and now you got it. Well done. So release the straws and support. I'm done on my side. RB88 (T) 19:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I love you too. Moving on, I mentioned above, "In the 'Studio Sessions' section, you need to clarify the band's relationship with Rough Trade after they signed to RCA. Did they leave the label? Were they signed to Rough Trade in one country and RCA in another?" I reread the article section and it implies that the group moved from Rough Trade to RCA, but then the release section has Geoff Travis talking about the Australian release. And we know that the album came out in the UK on Rough Trade. Is there further information to clarify the band's label situation? For example, when it first got a record deal, Oasis was signed worldwide with Epic Records, expect for the UK, where they were signed to Creation as part of their contract agreement. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. RB88 (T) 18:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Awesome show, great job. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. RB88 (T) 18:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I love you too. Moving on, I mentioned above, "In the 'Studio Sessions' section, you need to clarify the band's relationship with Rough Trade after they signed to RCA. Did they leave the label? Were they signed to Rough Trade in one country and RCA in another?" I reread the article section and it implies that the group moved from Rough Trade to RCA, but then the release section has Geoff Travis talking about the Australian release. And we know that the album came out in the UK on Rough Trade. Is there further information to clarify the band's label situation? For example, when it first got a record deal, Oasis was signed worldwide with Epic Records, expect for the UK, where they were signed to Creation as part of their contract agreement. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I took it all out. I can't be arsed with this anymore. Major markets are covered in prose anyway. I know you've been campaigning to have those lists removed everywhere and now you got it. Well done. So release the straws and support. I'm done on my side. RB88 (T) 19:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to be thorough, cite everything in the table. Also, the catalogue code would be listed on the album itself (therefore being a self-reference item like a tracklist), but the full release date wouldn't (at most you get a year on the copyright notice; I don't think I've ever seen a full release date on album packaging). Thus the latter needs an inline citation more than the former. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The cites are not about the dates. I don't think dates need that in the same way as track listing doesn't. It just happens/exists. Codes however are more specific and need refs (although you could argue the same there). I'm just thorough and like to source them. RB88 (T) 05:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do cites 83 and 85 verify the exact release dates you listed in the table? Furthermore, can you inline cite all the release dates? WesleyDodds (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added one sentence that may need tweaking, so refs won't be left hanging in mid-air. There's an awful lot of linking in there ... do we really need links to The New York Times, guitar, and other common terms? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. I tidied it up a bit. I'm surprised you consider The New York Times an overlink. Organisations always have to be linked. Also as I mentioned above, the Personnel section follows Wikipedia:Albums#Personnel which requires linking for all materials, regardless of link repetition or common words. I don't think the article is overlinked. I've gone through it tons of times. RB88 (T) 23:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, another guideline I haven't followed :) Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. I tidied it up a bit. I'm surprised you consider The New York Times an overlink. Organisations always have to be linked. Also as I mentioned above, the Personnel section follows Wikipedia:Albums#Personnel which requires linking for all materials, regardless of link repetition or common words. I don't think the article is overlinked. I've gone through it tons of times. RB88 (T) 23:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:25, 17 January 2010 [15].
- Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because all the suggestions made in the peer review have been implemented. I believe the article now meets all the FA criteria. Neelix (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text clearance moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technical comments
- No dab links
, but refs 62, 68, and 126 have dead external links. Ref 18 is also dead, but uses an archived page for the "work" param—I think you meant to make that the main url, not the "work" url, because without the archive.org stuff it is exactly the same. - All images (and there's a lot—I expect image review to take up some time here) have alt text.
For the map of The Gambia with two red dots, clarify that the dots are in the west and center of The Gambia (either in the alt or the prose). The Geography map doesn't have this problem because the dot location is effectively stated in the lead. Check the ref dates: most appear to be Month Day, Year but a few are ISO style and there's even French dates ("Retrieved 8 juin 2008"). Pick one style. (added on 21:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC))
--an odd name 21:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have dealt with all the problems presented by an odd name above except one. I have restored the "work" url for ref 18 and replaced the main url with the archived page. I have also clarified the alt for the map of The Gambia to specify the location of the two dots. The ref dates are now all formatted Month Day, Year. The only problem I'm not sure how to deal with is the three dead external links. How should I fix this problem? Neelix (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, dates look consistent Month Day, Year now. I can't find the dead links in Google cache or the Wayback. Remove them if they're just giving trivial facts; keep them and search around for another source for the cited facts if they're more important. --an odd name 06:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have switched ref 62 from a reference to the article online to a reference to the article in print. The external link for ref 68 has been switched to a link to an archived version of the page. The article referred to in ref 126 is also found on another website, so I switched the link. There should be no more dead external links in the article. Neelix (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All external links work now. --an odd name 22:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have switched ref 62 from a reference to the article online to a reference to the article in print. The external link for ref 68 has been switched to a link to an archived version of the page. The article referred to in ref 126 is also found on another website, so I switched the link. There should be no more dead external links in the article. Neelix (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, dates look consistent Month Day, Year now. I can't find the dead links in Google cache or the Wayback. Remove them if they're just giving trivial facts; keep them and search around for another source for the cited facts if they're more important. --an odd name 06:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments A nice article, but some niggles on first read I'll have a more detailed read through when I can. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There were some typos, and other infelicities, and the style of English varied between BE and AE (eg "colourful", but all units in meters, not metres. Since it's West Africa, I've tried to standardise as BE. I've made these changes, please check
- Damn, you're a Canadian - I should have realised, since I went to Nova Scotia in September. I still think BE is more appropriate, but if you want to restore CE, that's not an issue. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Metric units need imperial conversions to help the poor old yanks also nautical miles to metric
- mudflats are exposed so that boats with keels can easily dock. When arriving at Carabane, the Joola had to stop about 500 m north of the village in 8 to 10 m of water. isn't this contradictory?
- It's stretching things a bit to call the MacDonald's birding trip an ornithological survey, but the birds are typical of the area, and in my Birds of The Gambia and Senegal, so I don't think the facts are challengeable, and I'm happy to let the ref stand Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Similarly with the French fish ref, I appreciate how difficult it is to get cast iron sources, and I would support you if the refs are challenged, since the content is clearly correct. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for fixing the typos, Jim! I'm quite alright with using British English in the article considering the part of the world being addressed; it was simply more natural for me to write it in Canadian English. I have converted all the remaining measurements so that both metric and imperial are displayed, including the one reference to nautical miles.
- The two sentences about boats arriving at the island are not intended to state contradictory things. The first sentence states that it is easy for boats to dock on the island because their keels shift into the exposed mudflats, allowing them to dock securely (ie. there are no exposed rocks to damage the bottom of the boats). The second sentence states that the Joola had to stop about 500 m north of the village because the water surrounding the island is so shallow (ie. the mudflats are relatively close to the surface of the water). Boats can easily dock at the island, but not very close to the island. Do you feel the explanation of this in the article needs to be clarified? Neelix (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm no sailor and I assumed mudflats would be a hindrance, not a help, so perhaps clarification would be good; any way, I'm happy to
- The two sentences about boats arriving at the island are not intended to state contradictory things. The first sentence states that it is easy for boats to dock on the island because their keels shift into the exposed mudflats, allowing them to dock securely (ie. there are no exposed rocks to damage the bottom of the boats). The second sentence states that the Joola had to stop about 500 m north of the village because the water surrounding the island is so shallow (ie. the mudflats are relatively close to the surface of the water). Boats can easily dock at the island, but not very close to the island. Do you feel the explanation of this in the article needs to be clarified? Neelix (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
http://www.camacdonald.com/birding/tripreports/Senegal98.html lacks a publisher and what makes this a reliable source?There is no need to mark English language sources as such. Along the same note, current ref 34 is in French? It lacks the noteCurrent refs 70 and 71 are wikipedia articles, they are not reliable sources.http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carabane-Ambulance.jpg is not a reliable source
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I did not check the reliability of the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither the two references linking to Wikipedia articles nor the one linking to an image in the Commons was intended to contain citation information, just helpful links; I was not attempting to suggest that any information in the article was sourced by those references. Nonetheless, I have removed all three references. I have also removed all the "English" tags on the English source references in the article and I have added the "French" tag to ref 34. As for http://www.camacdonald.com/birding/tripreports/Senegal98.html, I don't know what to state as a publisher because the report was never published in print. It was written by Artur Degollada i Soler on July 14, 1998 with the title Lista de las aves observadas en Senegal and is presented to the English-speaking world online by Tina MacDonald. I do not believe that published ornithological studies of the island exist, so this is the most reliable information which is available about birds in Carabane. Neelix (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support the inclusion of the MacDonald reference. I have a reliable source, the standard text The Birds of The Gambia and Senegal, which establishes that the listed birds are present in the wider Casamance area, and makes it very likely that the listed source is correct in terms of content. Unless you are challenging the content, I would let the ref stand. Alternatively, I could add the book ref as well, in a supporting role. The worst case scenario, if you are adamant on this, would be to remove An ornithological study in 1998 discovered the following species on the island and replace with The following birds are typical of the Casamance area, plus the book ref. However, this seems a retrograde step, diluting the information specific to the island despite the near certainty that it is actually correct Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's approach this from another angle, who is Tina MacDonald? Is she an orinthologist? If so, she may qualify under WP:SPS. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to her website, Tina MacDonald is a novice birder who has done extensive research and study but has not received formal education in ornithology. Her website, which hosts a large number of unpublished ornithological surveys, is cited on the websites of the University of Richmond, the Southeastern Arizona Bird Observatory, the Information Security Group, and the National Audubon Society. Intute says that MacDonald's "outstanding site offers a comprehensive guide to bird watching hotspots around the world." MacDonald does not have a degree in ornithology, however her website is considered credible by established organizations. Neelix (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's do this then, throw up the book cite on top of the MacDonald, and we'll consider it close enough for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, supporting book reference added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the status on the other concerns? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you referring to your second, third, and fourth bullets? If so, I took care of them as soon as you mentioned them; my explanation of how I did so is contained in my first response here. Neelix (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the status on the other concerns? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, supporting book reference added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's do this then, throw up the book cite on top of the MacDonald, and we'll consider it close enough for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to her website, Tina MacDonald is a novice birder who has done extensive research and study but has not received formal education in ornithology. Her website, which hosts a large number of unpublished ornithological surveys, is cited on the websites of the University of Richmond, the Southeastern Arizona Bird Observatory, the Information Security Group, and the National Audubon Society. Intute says that MacDonald's "outstanding site offers a comprehensive guide to bird watching hotspots around the world." MacDonald does not have a degree in ornithology, however her website is considered credible by established organizations. Neelix (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither the two references linking to Wikipedia articles nor the one linking to an image in the Commons was intended to contain citation information, just helpful links; I was not attempting to suggest that any information in the article was sourced by those references. Nonetheless, I have removed all three references. I have also removed all the "English" tags on the English source references in the article and I have added the "French" tag to ref 34. As for http://www.camacdonald.com/birding/tripreports/Senegal98.html, I don't know what to state as a publisher because the report was never published in print. It was written by Artur Degollada i Soler on July 14, 1998 with the title Lista de las aves observadas en Senegal and is presented to the English-speaking world online by Tina MacDonald. I do not believe that published ornithological studies of the island exist, so this is the most reliable information which is available about birds in Carabane. Neelix (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments- I am copyediting the article as I go through, as the prose can do with some reworking. Please revert any changes which inadvertently change the meaning. I will post queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After years of development and community outreach, Carabane is now experiencing a series of trials. - I don't get this, I suspect it doesn't mean legal trials, so what is it referring to?
- References come at the end of sentences or clauses (i.e. after a full stop or comma)
Oysters are also a source of income, and Carabane is located in the center of the collection zone, which is one of the reasons why boats formerly called at the island. At one point, oysters were easily transported from Carabane to Dakar, where they were either sold by the pickers themselves or by hawkers. - do the previous refs ref this as well?
Along with the mangrove degradation, the civil unrest, and the inadequate fishery regulation, Casamance has had to deal with the closure of a major industrial complex in Ziguinchor in 2003 which employed more than 2000 people. - does the previous ref (115) reference this as well?
They return to help their parents in the rice fields and participate in religious ceremonies during the dry season, but they tend to settle off the island permanently. - does the previous ref (117) reference this as well?
French anthropologist Louis-Vincent Thomas posed the question of whether Carabane should be saved - is this overly dramatic? Would "preserved" be more appropriate in this sentence and the next?
Looks okay otherwise. Look forward to supporting soon. Might have another look at copyediting. Prose is now better but a few minor improvements might be out there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the copyediting, Casliber. Here are my responses to your questions:
- After years of development and community outreach, Carabane is now experiencing a series of trials. - The word "trials" is used to refer to the social struggles the village has been facing: the declining population, the Casamance Conflict, the sinking of the Joola, etc. Can you think of a way of making this clearer?
- Oysters are also a source of income, and Carabane is located in the center of the collection zone, which is one of the reasons why boats formerly called at the island. At one point, oysters were easily transported from Carabane to Dakar, where they were either sold by the pickers themselves or by hawkers. - Ref 113 is the source for this information.
- Along with the mangrove degradation, the civil unrest, and the inadequate fishery regulation, Casamance has had to deal with the closure of a major industrial complex in Ziguinchor in 2003 which employed more than 2000 people. - Yes, ref 115 is the source for this information.
- They return to help their parents in the rice fields and participate in religious ceremonies during the dry season, but they tend to settle off the island permanently. - Yes, ref 117 is the source for this information
- French anthropologist Louis-Vincent Thomas posed the question of whether Carabane should be saved - A direct translation of the title of Thomas's article is "Is it necessary to save Carabane?" Similarly, a direct translation of Diatta's article is "Who is to save Diogué-Nikine-Carabane?" The questions they pose are dramatic, but I suppose we can tone them down. Neelix (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read the last through a few times, and changed to one verb each. Actually I do think "save" adds something when added right at the end. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe all the citations are now located after full stops. As for your first bullet, what do you think of changing the word 'trials' to 'difficulties'? Neelix (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think 'difficulties' is better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Neelix (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think 'difficulties' is better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review
File:Joola.jpg does not have the original author information.- Others seem to check out.
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how to fix this problem. Going here, I can see the image listed and licensed by Creative Commons, but no original author is given on the website. What should be done? Neelix (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would remove and tag the image. World66 blanket-marks everything as free, but its disclaimer says it makes no garauntees, so the image could be possibly non-free. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The image has been removed from the article and a tag has been placed on the image recommending its deletion. Neelix (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would remove and tag the image. World66 blanket-marks everything as free, but its disclaimer says it makes no garauntees, so the image could be possibly non-free. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Tony (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Badly overlinked. Images tiny and too numerous.[reply]
- Why is "island" linked? In fact, the whole article needs a serious link audit.
- Why is "WWII" linked? Far too general for this context; can you find a daughter article or a section to link to that is more apposite? If not, unlink.
- "widely-held"; please see User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style#Hyphens.2A.
- Many of the images are tiny. Take the Animism one: not good res, I admit, but the details are impossible to make out. It's unfair to those with a slow connection, who have a hard time opening the image; for everyone else, it's plain irritating. Why the unreadable customs table? Please put a table in the main text (or a summary or sample from it), since it would have to be rather large to make sense to us. The is far to small to read. The caption for "solar lighting": which wide roads? Surely they're not all like that. And the impression is that solar lighting is used for roads all over the country ... I doubt it. Kayendo: too small. Two paddy-type pics, both tiny. Remove one and make it a little larger. Tony (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the link to island and retargeted the links to the World Wars so that they now direct to the West African theatres. I have removed the hypens in the two instances of "widely-held." I have enlarged the Animism image and removed the French customs table; if there are too many images on the article, this one seems to be the least important. I have also removed the image of the checkerboard-like paddy fields and enlarged the image of the levees protecting the paddy fields. As for the caption on the solar lighting image, the information is correct as is. The only roads on the island are far wider than need be because they were constructed for use by vehicles which never arrived. All the roads on the island employ solar lighting. There is no indication that this is true off the island in other parts of Senegal; I'm not sure how a user would get that impression. Nonetheless, I'm open to suggestions about how to make the wording less ambiguous. I feel that the remaining links and images are appropriate, however I would be willing to remove any which others deem superfluous. Neelix (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks; much better. But why is "tax" linked? We know what that means. This is not Wiktionary. Readers are expected to know the language. Why "prerogatives"? They simply make it much less likely that readers will click on "law enforcement", which does go to a specific target: "Law enforcement in Senegal"—nice. The link to "wise old men" is, I have to say, extremely European and historical in focus. Does this put the readers off the scent? Consider piping the article "Jola language" to "their language", not just "language", as a signal that the link-target is specific, not a dictionary term. Can you go through all of the article, please, and ensure the linking is professional? These exercises may help. Tony (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read through the exercises you indicated and I have attempted to implement them as well as I could throughout the article. If you have further concerns about the linking in the article, please let me know. Neelix (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks; much better. But why is "tax" linked? We know what that means. This is not Wiktionary. Readers are expected to know the language. Why "prerogatives"? They simply make it much less likely that readers will click on "law enforcement", which does go to a specific target: "Law enforcement in Senegal"—nice. The link to "wise old men" is, I have to say, extremely European and historical in focus. Does this put the readers off the scent? Consider piping the article "Jola language" to "their language", not just "language", as a signal that the link-target is specific, not a dictionary term. Can you go through all of the article, please, and ensure the linking is professional? These exercises may help. Tony (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- I have to do these piecemeal; sorry. But first off, Slavery and colonial rule in French West Africa (Martin Klein, CUP) makes a bit more of the slavery issue than this article does. Thoughts? I hope I'm not headed into 1b territory. • Ling.Nut 05:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I read the Martin Klein reference, but it doesn't seem to say much about slavery in Carabane; I don't see anything there that pertains to slavery in Carabane which isn't already expressed in the article. Other than two comments about runaway slaves, the only information on the topic I can find in the Martin Klein reference states "Carabane was dominated by a métis planter who grew rice and produced lime with slave labor. The slave trade was pursued there openly at first and then clandestinely until the early twentieth century." The Carabane article currently says more than that about slavery on the island: "Arriving on the west African coast in the 15th century, the Portuguese were active in the region from the 16th century onwards, mostly in search of wax, ivory, and slaves." "The Baudin family employed slaves and, despite the declaration of its abolition in the French colonial empire in 1848, this slavery continued on the island until the early 20th century." "While the Mandinka Muslims continued, illegally, to practice slavery and trade, non-Muslim villages tended to come together, accepting the Resident of Carabane as the arbitrator of their disagreements." etc. If anything, the article makes more of the slavery issue than the Martin Klein reference. I would gladly add more information about slavery in Carabane to the article if there was more which could be added, but all the information in the particular reference you mention is already included in the article. Neelix (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support (media licensing and cites not checked) - the article is informative, engaging and comprehensive and contains a wealth of relevant illustrations. I note that image size has been queried, but given the generous number of images I think the small size is sensible so as not to overwhelm the article—the reader can click to see better when interested in a particular view. A few detailed comments follow; I'll probably add others, and may do minor copyedits rather than listing them so please revert if any problems result.
- The lead's a bit long but I think it's probably justified.
- Throughout the article, there are rather a lot of common words linked. For example, "The local economy was based mainly on rice". Moreover, the word "rice" has already appeared several times with no link (including an earlier appearance in the same paragraph). The article needs going through to remove unnecessary links per WP:Overlinking.
- "Signs of erosion have been observed since 1849. The house of the government representative on the island has burned down twice and was rebuilt both times." - two apparently unrelated sentences. A third sentence then explains the connection but this is confusing and the passage should be reworked.
- "The testimonies of explorers and colonial administrators demonstrate that Carabane has participated in rice cultivation, fishery, trade, and palm wine production for a long time." - "a long time" is unnecessarily vague. At least an order of magnitude should be indicated (perhaps "for centuries"?).
- "At one time, the island was considered an arid location,[11] where coconuts were the only useful plants likely to flourish and vegetables were difficult to produce.[23] In what is now a tropical climate, vegetation is more abundant than in the north, especially during the wet season." - it's unclear what "in the north" (where there is less abundant vegetation than on the island) refers to.
- "the Jola people, the ethnic group which remains the most populous on the island to this day." - the last three words are superfluous (and I believe deprecated, although I can't find where I read that).
- "The ceasefire of 2004 brought relative peace, but in the meantime, the sinking of the Joola in 2002 claimed the lives of many inhabitants of Carabane and cut off much of its ability to engage in trade and accept tourists. In considering the threat of coastal erosion, some fear the worst.[68] After years of development and community outreach, Carabane is now experiencing a series of difficulties.[69] In 1998, the French commune of Bon-Encontre committed to providing Carabane with humanitarian aid, both economically and culturally." - the connection between the consecutive sentences is unclear, as is the nature of the difficulties Carabane is now experiencing, since the chronology reverses through the paragraph from 2004 to 1998.
"Along with the mangrove degradation, the civil unrest, and the inadequate fishery regulation, Casamance has had to deal with the closure of a major industrial complex in Ziguinchor in 2003 which employed more than 2000 people." - this should make clear the nature of the major industrial complex and its relevance to the Aquaculture section in which these words appear.
PL290 (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have addressed all the points you have made above by editing the article; please check my solutions and let me know if they meet with your approval. The only concern you have raised which I have not fully addressed is the overlinking. I have removed all the links to rice except the first, which I retargeted to the Africa section on that article. I have already done a thorough review of the article to remove extraneous links and make generic links more specific. Would it be possible for you to list some of the common terms being linked so I will know which to remove? Neelix (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As requested I will try to list a few examples. I may be incorrect, but just picking some at random I have the impression that some or all of the following may be unnecessarily linked: rain, farmers, vegetables, peanut, coconuts, palm trees, clay, straw, mud bricks, marshy, oyster, drinking water, humidity, oranges. However, judgement by editors is necessary according to the topic and article, so I will simply leave the comment open for the nominator and other reviewers to take any further action if deemed appropriate. Thank you for your responses; all my concerns have been met. PL290 (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your extensive copyediting. I have removed the links to the common terms you listed. Neelix (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As requested I will try to list a few examples. I may be incorrect, but just picking some at random I have the impression that some or all of the following may be unnecessarily linked: rain, farmers, vegetables, peanut, coconuts, palm trees, clay, straw, mud bricks, marshy, oyster, drinking water, humidity, oranges. However, judgement by editors is necessary according to the topic and article, so I will simply leave the comment open for the nominator and other reviewers to take any further action if deemed appropriate. Thank you for your responses; all my concerns have been met. PL290 (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Karanacs. Overall, this is a very good article and I am happy to see such fine work on a topic that is underrepresented on Wikipedia. I have a few quibbles that I expect will be easy for you to fix.
- I saw quite a few claims that need to be properly cited. I'm not sure if this is a problem of not having a citation at all for the claims, or if the citation style used needs to be changed. These are the passages that I believe need to be sourced:
- The lack of clay is the reason that architecture on the island employs straw wrapped around wooden frames more often than banco mud bricks. This type of architecture is also common in the villages of Mlomp and Seleki.
- These tangles help retain soil, a process which expands the island where the power of tidal race would normally have the opposite effect
- and the information it contains remains valuable today.
- Tourists are not as attracted to the island for its mangroves as for the coconut trees which line its beaches, featured on many of Carabane's postcards. These palm trees are a valued resource on the island.
particularly because the inhabitants of Gorée were threatened with losing part of their resources with the imminent demise of the slave trade, and also because of their competition with Saint-Louis.By the following year, the Christian community had performed 1100 baptisms, as well as many catechumen.was insufficient staffing, cost of living was rising, and the harsh climate began to wear on the buildings. In 1920, the diocese had, in addition to Carabane, thirteen churches and approximately thirty-five chapels.the Carabane church was one of the buildings selected, some members blamed the colonial administration for having facilitated the expansion of Islam in the country- Although many of them were Wolofs and Muslims, they did not know the Jola country and its traditions. The periods of drought that ravaged the Sahel in the 1970s forced peanut farmers to move to regions where rice was all that grew
- In particular, the location of the island does not allow easy access to serious or urgent medical assistance. The pirogue-ambulance funded by the regional council is used only as a last resort
- . The main portion is manufactured from a very hard wood measuring 2 to 2.5 metres (6 ft 7 in to 8 ft 2 in) in length. The kayendo is mainly used to plough rice fields, but is also used for other purposes, such as excavation and construction
Badji Malang, a local painter, potter, sculptor, and poet, has created a camp in the area.
The house of the government representative on the island has burned down twice and was rebuilt both times. The subsequent erosion is evident when one considers that the original location of the house is now flooded, even at low tide -> Did the fires directly impact the erosion (that is what the "subsequently" implied to me)? If not, do we really need to discuss the fires or can this be framed more generally?Should have conversions from degrees C to degrees FIn a few places, the article may be overly detailed. Is is necessary to provide the name of the report (and the translation) that Bertrand-Bocande submitted?If the oldest inhabitants of Casamance are the Bainuk people, the left bank of the mouth of the river was mostly populated by the Jola - Is there a question of whether the Bainuk people were the oldest inhabitants? Is the fact that the Jola inhabited the left bank dependent on whether the Bainuk were the oldest inhabitants in the region? this may need to be reworded.I'm not sure how the point about poor sanitation fits into the paragraph on rice/lime. Can this be explained a bit more?I think "employed slaves" is probably a bit of an oxymoron. Can this be reworded?Was the Baudin brother really JOhn, or was his name actually Jean (the French version)? I see that both spellings are used.Is this François Mendy School or François Mendy Ecole?
Karanacs (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of your nine main bullets, I believe that I have fully addressed the last eight by way of my edits. Please let me know if there is anything left to do with them. As for your first bullet, the sourcing confusion with various statements, I have only clarified the sourcing for some of them. Of the twelve, I have clarified the sourcing for #'s 5, 6, 7, 8, and 12. I am confident that #'s 1, 2, 9, 10, and 11 are sourced by references which are included near them, however I do not have access to those sources and therefore cannot verify that this is the case. While the same may be true of #'s 3 and 4, I think it likely that they are not sourced. What would you suggest I do? Neelix (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your very prompt response. I've stricken the comments that you've addressed. I am concerned about the statements that still have no sourcing. These that I highlighed (there were more unsourced statements in the article) really need a source, as they are expressing opinions or reasons for events. If you can't find any other sources to cover these facts, they may need to be removed from the article. Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tried to find alternate sourcing for these seven statements, however I have been unsuccessful. I have contacted Ji-Elle, the main contributor of the original article on the French Wikipedia, to determine the sourcing for these statements. Ji-Elle was very prompt in responding to my request and has agreed to look into it within the next couple days. Can the conclusion of the FAC wait until Ji-Elle gets back to me with this information? If not, would removing these seven statements from the article be an acceptable temporary solution? Neelix (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have heard back from Ji-Elle about four of the remaining seven statements requiring citation and I have added the citations to the article accordingly. The remaining three to be sourced are #'s 2, 3, and 4. I will add these citations when Ji-Elle gets back to me. Neelix (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ji-Elle has gotten back to me with citations for the remaining unsourced statements. I have added the citations to the article accordingly. I believe that the entire article is now fully sourced with clear citations. Neelix (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have heard back from Ji-Elle about four of the remaining seven statements requiring citation and I have added the citations to the article accordingly. The remaining three to be sourced are #'s 2, 3, and 4. I will add these citations when Ji-Elle gets back to me. Neelix (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tried to find alternate sourcing for these seven statements, however I have been unsuccessful. I have contacted Ji-Elle, the main contributor of the original article on the French Wikipedia, to determine the sourcing for these statements. Ji-Elle was very prompt in responding to my request and has agreed to look into it within the next couple days. Can the conclusion of the FAC wait until Ji-Elle gets back to me with this information? If not, would removing these seven statements from the article be an acceptable temporary solution? Neelix (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your very prompt response. I've stricken the comments that you've addressed. I am concerned about the statements that still have no sourcing. These that I highlighed (there were more unsourced statements in the article) really need a source, as they are expressing opinions or reasons for events. If you can't find any other sources to cover these facts, they may need to be removed from the article. Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Neelix's recent edits have satisfied my sourcing concerns. Thank you for your hard work - this is an excellent article. Karanacs (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
(ec) Support, assuming Neelix's edits have addressed K's questions. Fascinating piece. A couple of my own minor queries:
- Lead: "Although Carabane was once a regional capital in its own right, the village no longer fits into the social structure decreed by the Senegalese government". I read the very interesting, if somewhat complex, section that this is intended to summarise. The lead sentence does not however make sense to me. It appears to be about two unrelated points, so the use of "Although...," is inappropriate. Alternatively, the intended meaning could be "Although Carabane was once a regional capital in its own right, the village no longer qualifies as a capital under Senegalese government policy." One way or the other, this sentence needs tweaking.
"If the oldest inhabitants of Casamance are the Bainuk people, the left bank of the mouth of the river was mostly populated by the Jola". I didn't understand this sentence. Is the intended meaning: "While the oldest inhabitants of Casamance may be the Bainuk people, the left bank of the mouth of the river was mostly populated by the Jola"? If so, suggest this be amended accordingly.- I have reduced overlinking: feel free to check the balance and reduce further if you think it's worth it. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your copy editing and reduction of overlinking. I have reworded the two sentences you mentioned; let me know if they are still unclear. Neelix (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Better - i have changed "social" to "administrative" structure as being what I think is more accurate language. Otherwise all OK. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Concern; this article was a translation from the French wiki article. Were all of the original sources consulted by the nominator, and all text verified? There were serious WP:LAYOUT issues that seem to have come from the French version, and why are website publishers in italics? Also, books need publishers. I would like to see a French speaker check some of the sources for verification. There is also text sandwiched between images in many sections, including "Historic sites" (see WP:MOS#Images). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have taken care of the missing publishers in the bibliography section; most were present but were accidentally placed in the 'editor' rather than 'publisher' field. You say that there were layout issues; do some persist? I do not know how to unitalicize the website publishers; is it possible that this is a function of the template? Also, what do you suggest to avoid image sandwiching? The primary editor of the French article, Ji-Elle, has reviewed the article and complimented me on the translation. Which sources do you feel need to be checked for verification? I believe Ji-Elle would be willing to check them for us. Neelix (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have corrected the layout. I still see quite a bit of text that needs citation (opinions and numbers), and the concern with a translation is that, unless the main editor has access to and has reviewed all of the original sources, how does s/he know that the article is comprehensive and/or accurately reflects the sources? FAs cannot be built via translation. Can the French author not send you all of the source material? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sure Ji-Elle would be willing to send me the source material, however it would be much easier for Ji-Elle to simply verify that the English article accurately relates the information found in that material and state so here. Would you consider this an acceptable solution? Neelix (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This will have to be resolved by reviewer consensus, and it is troubling that none of the reveiwers raised the issue. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT; in this case, the English article got its text from the French Wiki, not from the original sources. Translated articles, in which the translator does not access the original sources, by definition cannot meet WP:V, a core policy, which assumes the writer accessed the original sources. The translation relies on the original source of the fr.wiki, and Wiki is not a reliable source. An additional issue is that WP:NONENG must be accounted for. A third problem is that WP:V prefers (but does not require) English-language sources; was a search done for information in English? For example, this source contains some info that seems at odds with article content; I don't know if it's a good source. Another English source. Not sure about this one or this one, but English sources of info should be available. This entire issue needs to be revisited by supporting reviewers and resolved; how it can be resolved will depend on reviewer consensus. Yet another issue is that the article still contains numbers and opinions that are unsourced (and I came across a sentence that started with a number-- it should be recast so that it doesn't start with a number). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sure Ji-Elle would be willing to send me the source material, however it would be much easier for Ji-Elle to simply verify that the English article accurately relates the information found in that material and state so here. Would you consider this an acceptable solution? Neelix (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have corrected the layout. I still see quite a bit of text that needs citation (opinions and numbers), and the concern with a translation is that, unless the main editor has access to and has reviewed all of the original sources, how does s/he know that the article is comprehensive and/or accurately reflects the sources? FAs cannot be built via translation. Can the French author not send you all of the source material? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not just delete all articles based on translations, and abolish the projects which encourage such translations? Your view, which appears to go beyond actual policies in several cases, isn't followed in even 1% of those translations, I'll bet. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why it's an issue for reviewer consensus, but it is not disputed that Wiki is not a reliable source, and Featured articles must be based on reliable sources. Translations may be getting by on Wiki, even though they violate core policy, but FA standards are higher. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the various Wikipedias are not a reliable source. But I'm assuming that this article does cite reliable sources. That's what you need to go by here; whether or not the cited sources support the statements in this article. It doesn't matter in the least whether any particular editor has read those sources; what matters is whether they back up what is said. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that User:Ji-Elle is, in a very minor way, a contributor to this article (putting the star on the interwiki link). From what has been said here, it appears that she has read the cited sources, and that she has read this English article and understands it well enough to think that it accurately reflects the sources. It would appear that she is competent to assess that, even if she is not comfortable enough with the English to do the editing here. So, would it satisfy your objections if she posted a statement to that effect on the article's talk page? I see no reason why it couldn't be in French, at least with respect to any detailed analysis. And Neelix or someone else could even provide an English translation there if she does use French. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, whether we should set the precedent of elevating a translation to featured status, when the translator did not have access to the original sources, is a matter for reviewer consensus. But before we can even consider that, WP:NONENG, the inclusion of English-language sources to the extent they are available, the sandwiching of text between images, and the unsourced text need to be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have shown nothing to be contrary to WP:NONENG. We don't need wild speculation here. Furthermore, issues about images or whatever should be dealt with separately, not in this thread. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- hmmm. Anyway, I've raised this at WT:FAC for broader discussion; as delegate, I don't want the position of establishing a new FA precedent in the absence of broader discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SandyGeorgia: I have added citations to all the statements to which you affixed the "cn" template. Please let me know if there are other statements in the article for which you would like clearer citations. Also, you mention in one of your edit summaries that overlinking still exists within the article. This issue has already been addressed at length. Would you be able to specify which terms have been inappropriately linked? Neelix (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- hmmm. Anyway, I've raised this at WT:FAC for broader discussion; as delegate, I don't want the position of establishing a new FA precedent in the absence of broader discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have shown nothing to be contrary to WP:NONENG. We don't need wild speculation here. Furthermore, issues about images or whatever should be dealt with separately, not in this thread. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, whether we should set the precedent of elevating a translation to featured status, when the translator did not have access to the original sources, is a matter for reviewer consensus. But before we can even consider that, WP:NONENG, the inclusion of English-language sources to the extent they are available, the sandwiching of text between images, and the unsourced text need to be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that User:Ji-Elle is, in a very minor way, a contributor to this article (putting the star on the interwiki link). From what has been said here, it appears that she has read the cited sources, and that she has read this English article and understands it well enough to think that it accurately reflects the sources. It would appear that she is competent to assess that, even if she is not comfortable enough with the English to do the editing here. So, would it satisfy your objections if she posted a statement to that effect on the article's talk page? I see no reason why it couldn't be in French, at least with respect to any detailed analysis. And Neelix or someone else could even provide an English translation there if she does use French. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the various Wikipedias are not a reliable source. But I'm assuming that this article does cite reliable sources. That's what you need to go by here; whether or not the cited sources support the statements in this article. It doesn't matter in the least whether any particular editor has read those sources; what matters is whether they back up what is said. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why it's an issue for reviewer consensus, but it is not disputed that Wiki is not a reliable source, and Featured articles must be based on reliable sources. Translations may be getting by on Wiki, even though they violate core policy, but FA standards are higher. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Object to changes in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English started by Jimfbleak in the particular edit he references above[16], and in subsequent edits. The reasons he gave above are not in accordance with our rules, and contrary to the statements made there, the usage was consistent at the time.
- This is particularly objectionable because at the time that Jimfbleak made those changes, there were no metre spellings on the edit page of the article. Yes, there were "-metre" spellings in the article, but every one of them was the result either of ignorance, or of deliberately improper use of the black box {{convert}}. That template defaults to British spellings, and you need to jump through hoops to get it to comply with the existing usage within an article. That wasn't done by whoever first put those convert templates in this page. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope I'm not being accused of bad faith here. I picked up what appeared to me to be a mix of AE and BE and standardised to the latter as being more appropriate for West Africa, where BE is standard. When I realised the main editor was Canadian, I offered to revert my edits to CE, but he accepted the changes as more appropriate also. I didn't put in the convert templates, which personally I wouldn't touch with a bargepole, and I read "-metre". Why are my actions, which I offered to reverse, "objectionable" - or is it just that changing apparent AE spelling is blasphemy by definition? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I realize that you saw "metres". I think I'll stick around to make sure that every article going through this FA process gets reviewed for various templates (many of the infobox templates do the same thing, though spelling changes are less likely to occur there because they are more likely to use symbols for the units of measure) sneaking in varieties-of-English changes.
- Another problem is that the templates sometimes cannot even be set to give the proper spelling. For example, the sp=us parameter in {{convert}} doesn't even work in cases such as this:
- {{convert|3.7|t|lb|sp=us}} which yields 3.7 metric tons (8,200 lb).
- Despite that having the sp=us set, it gives us a spelling much more foreign to American English than "litre" is. The only solution is to remove the template and enter the measurements properly. Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, with respect to national varieties of English, it is only for articles closely related to English-speaking countries for which we look at the variety of English used there. For French-speaking countries, or whatever, the location isn't supposed to be a factor. We also don't use the spelling "meter" just because an article deals with Germany, or Norway, or Sweden, or the Netherlands, or Iceland, or whatever.
- That convert template is an incredibly complex behemoth waiting to pounce on the unwary. Good grief, it takes thousands of subtemplates, each on a separate template page, for it to work. I wish more editors were like you, realizing that they are out of their league and avoiding it. Few editors are willing to invest the time to learn even the rudiments of its complexity, and perhaps nobody understands everything it might do. (There is even a way to get "3.7 metric tons (8,200 lb)*" as a result, but you cannot do so by setting the sp= parameter if you use the proper symbol t for metric tons to identify the units.) Gene Nygaard (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Amen to that, even in its intended task, the template sometimes converts narrow ranges to give nonsense like 97–97 cm. More to the point, what action are you suggesting? Although it was not intended, BE is not inappropriate for this article, and is accepted by the Canadian nominator. Are you asking that the Canadian English spellings be restored as a matter of principle? If not, please clarify what you want me or the nominator to do (I wouldn't revert the spelling unless the main editor agreed) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes, of course. Despite the apparent beliefs of some of the denizens of these pages, the nominator does not own this article. British English would not be inappropriate; but neither is American English. So our rules are that it shouldn't have been changed. Certainly not without any discussion on the article's talk page about it. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RETAIN is a behavioural guideline and not a valid reason to oppose. WP:RETAIN specifically governs the case where the dialect choice makes no difference to the quality of the article, and is an arbitrary means of settling disputes and should not be used to create them. An honest mistake was made and the dialect got changed. Changing it back purely to satisfy wiki-pedantry will not improve the article or make anyone happier. At FA, we review the current text of the article for conformance to content guidelines. Issues with editor behaviour, or aspects of article history are not relevant and should be discussed elsewhere if at all. Colin°Talk 22:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are hoist on your own petard. The changes took place during the FA review. So by your own admission, you should be restoring it. Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)01:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RETAIN is a behavioural guideline and not a valid reason to oppose. WP:RETAIN specifically governs the case where the dialect choice makes no difference to the quality of the article, and is an arbitrary means of settling disputes and should not be used to create them. An honest mistake was made and the dialect got changed. Changing it back purely to satisfy wiki-pedantry will not improve the article or make anyone happier. At FA, we review the current text of the article for conformance to content guidelines. Issues with editor behaviour, or aspects of article history are not relevant and should be discussed elsewhere if at all. Colin°Talk 22:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Bibliography contains Mark Peter and Peter Mark; which is it? (please put in alphabetical order) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A WP:MOSNUM (1300 vs. 1,300) review is needed throughout, as is WP:MOSDATE#Precise language (avoid the use of terms like "today", which becomes outdated, instead include as of dates ... I would add precise language myself, but I can't read the sources. Words like "today", "now" and "currently" occur a couple dozen times in the article.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have completed the WP:MOSNUM, WP:MOSDATE#Precise language, and WP:ENDASH reviews. Please let me know if there are other reviews of the article you feel need to be done. Neelix (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments continued. I've done a major cleanup of the reference formatting (note that for cite web, use the publisher paramater instead of work) and this has exposed some additional concerns. Several of the references are without publishers. In one case (Gregg...) a book does not include a page number. I also spotted several other sentences that need to be cited. I've added {{fact}} tags to these in the article. I'll be going through the sources more thoroughly over the next few days and will post additional comments here. Karanacs (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no title or author for Teranga, Nov-Dec 2007What makes [17] a reliable source? This appears to be a self-published website.- many of the journal articles reference a range of pages rather than a single page (or two). Can you verify that the whole range is the appropriate citation for these facts, or should it be more specific?
The Cormier-Salem reference from 1989 has a weird date - can you please verify thisThere are two references to Marie-Christine Cormier-Salem and one to Marie-Christine Cormier. Can we please verify that the one without the Salem is correct?What makes Kassoumay a reliable source? In a brief look at the site, I couldn't tell who publishes it - it seems like a tourist website.- The doctoral thesis needs to be better cited - the publisher is not correct. Has this thesis been used as a source by any other scholars?
This reference needs a publisher listed: Jacques Diatta (January 7, 2007). "Qui pour sauver Diogué-Nikine-Carabane?". http://wikiwix.com/cache/?url=http://diembering-aadd.com/index.php?option=com_content%26task=view%26id=13%26Itemid=1. Retrieved November 19, 2009.needs a publisher: Denise Savigneau (May 1938). "Rapport n° 17 (La Casamance)". http://www.hull.ac.uk/savineau/reports/french/rapport17.rtf. Retrieved January 19, 2009.
Karanacs (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much for the reference formatting cleanup; the reference and bibliography sections look great. A substantial number of concerns have been raised over the past few hours. Considering the slow trickle of suggestions for improvement over the past month that this article has been undergoing its featured article candidacy, I must admit that I am overwhelmed. I will attempt to address the new concerns as swiftly as possible, however the shear number of them may prohibit the sort of quick responses and solutions which I have been keen to supply throughout the past month. I have notified Ji-Elle about the concerns which have been raised; Ji-Elle is fluent in English and may be able to respond to some of these questions more aptly than I. I can address four of the issues right now and will attempt as many others as I can tomorrow.
- I have added the title and author to the Teranga citation; it was included in another citation already.
- The only thing that the DaKite source is cited for is the information that kitesurfing takes place in Carabane. I would expect that a website published by a kitesurfing company (DaKite) which offers kitesurfing in Carabane would be an appropriate source for this information, however I can look for another if you think it necessary.
- I have added the publisher to the Diatta citation.
- I have added the publisher to the Savigneau citation.
- Neelix (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have verified that the Marie-Christine Cormier citation is correct. I don't know why an author would use different forms of her surname on different articles published in the same year, however we must go based on the citation information presented on the sources themselves wherever possible. Also, which doctoral thesis requires supplimentary citation information? Petit or Guilera? As for the Kassoumay website, it is published by a company called Kassoumay. They offer various tourism-related services in the Casamance area. I would expect that it is a reliable source for the same reason that DaKite is a reliable source, however I can look for another to source the information it currently sources in the article if you believe it necessary. Neelix (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now added the page number to the Gregg reference. Have you identified citations lacking publishers other than the ones you list above? If not, I believe all the citations are now supplied with publishers. Neelix (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ji-Elle has gotten back to me with much information, the most important item of which is that the date for the Cormier-Salem 1989 reference is correct. I have also been able to add citations to the two statements to which you affixed the "fact" template. Neelix (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now added the page number to the Gregg reference. Have you identified citations lacking publishers other than the ones you list above? If not, I believe all the citations are now supplied with publishers. Neelix (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have verified that the Marie-Christine Cormier citation is correct. I don't know why an author would use different forms of her surname on different articles published in the same year, however we must go based on the citation information presented on the sources themselves wherever possible. Also, which doctoral thesis requires supplimentary citation information? Petit or Guilera? As for the Kassoumay website, it is published by a company called Kassoumay. They offer various tourism-related services in the Casamance area. I would expect that it is a reliable source for the same reason that DaKite is a reliable source, however I can look for another to source the information it currently sources in the article if you believe it necessary. Neelix (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for verifying all that! I've finished what I'm planning to do of the ref cleanup. More questions/comments:
- The book Senegal et Gambie needs an author, if possible
- Several books don't have ISBNs listed.
- Need a publisher for Entrepreneurs en Vedette
- Please go through all the references closely to make sure that I didn't miss anything. Journals and books should be listed in the sources section, and only the reference (author name/title and date) and page number in references. Please check also for formatting - no extra characters, should be periods after the page numbers, etc.
- Please make sure that both doctoral theses are clearly marked as such (in English). The catalan language one is the only one I had recognized as a thesis, and the publisher on it doesn't seem right.
Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I spent some time today examining various English-language sources that I had partial access to so that I would have a better idea of whether the article was truly comprehensive. (My next step is to examine some of the French sources, but I don't think I have time for that today.) I was pleased to note how highly some of the sources used in the article already have been rated by their pears (Louis-Vincent Thomas and Christian Roche have been cited in many of the sources I consulted). I had trouble finding English-language sources that discussed much of anything beyond the history. My overall impression from this is that the history of the article does cover most of the key facts, but leaves out a lot of the context.
- In general, areas that I think may need more fleshing out are: (Note that I don't know for sure if there is information available on each of these points - this is intended to be a list of suggestions for further research)
- the slave trade - this was a huge part of African history in general, and there is very little information given here on how this might have affected Carabane, and whether Carabane's experience was different from that of other parts of the region.
- colonial competition - although it is mentioned that there was some competition among different colonies, we're not told why, or how this might have played out, or even what the result was.
- colonial supremacy - we're given a brief overview of the fact that the people didn't take to French authority very well, but not told much detail.
- sinking of the Joola - this is mentioned in several places in passing. Can we get a few more details?
- recent violence - this is mentioned, but little context is given in how the local conflict relates to what is going on in the rest of the region.
- List of sources that may prove useful. Note that the links are to Google books, but the entire books are not accessible. You do not have to use these sources - they are mainly suggestions as to the type of information that might be available.
- This book has some information that may be useful about how Bertrand-Bocande' gained recognition of French sovereignity. - [18] Robert Aldrich, Greater France: A History of French Overseas Expansion, published by Palgrave
- A tiny bit of info about French-Portuguese competition - [19] Boubacar Barry. Senegambia and the Atlantic Slave Trade, published by Cambridge University Press, 1998
- I can't access this book, but I suspect it may have some useful information - [20] - Alice Joy Hamer - Tradition and change: a social history of Diola women (Southwest Senegal) in the Twentieth Century - University of Michigan
- A quick search of the Peter Mark source "Portuguese" style... on Google books indicates that there is more information in that book that could be useful
- Mark's other book, A cultural, economic, and religious history of the Basse Casamance since 1500 is listed in the references but not used. I suspect this will have a great deal of useful information.
- This book [21] also has information about Jola/Diola culture and one modern perspective on whether the Casamance is actually part of Senegal. This perspective is not really seen in the article.
- Klein's book Slavery and colonial rule in French West Africa is only used once in the article. Per the limited preview on Google books, this may provide more information about how the slave trade affected Carabane
- This [22] has further information about the language spoken in Carabane - Thomas Albert Sebeok, Current Trends in linguistics: Linguistics in sub-Saharan Africa
- Here's a reference to a medical article that mentioned an epidemic that killed all Europeans in Carabane [23]
- There's no preview of this book, but I wonder if it would be useful - 'Shrines of the slave trade: Diola religion and society in precolonial Senegambia By Robert Martin Baum
Karanacs (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few more things on the existing sources:
- Reference 17 (Naufrage de transbordeur ....) needs authors listed (see source for those). It looks as if this is an official report that is hosted on Kassoumay but is not necessarily published by them - this needs to be made more clear in the citation. Same with ref 101 ("Commission d'enquete technique...")
- Reference 20 is a deadlink. I was trying to check to see if the source was in French or English, because I suspect if it was published by the US State Department the title should be in English.
- I haven't seen the Teranga source. If it is primarily written as a giant ad for Carabane (which may be the case considering it is published by Air Senegal), then it is likely not an appropriate source for Tourists are not as attracted to the island for its mangroves as for the coconut trees .
- I'm not sure whether Kassoumay (a tourist site) is appropriate to use to source the fish/reptiles that can be found on the island.
- Ref 39 is not correct. Scientific Linux is the name of the software used on the web server, not the web server itself. This site appears to actually be (http://iodeweb1.vliz.be/odin/) OceanDocs, a repository for scientific papers. The particular paper cited here mentions that it was a paper presented at a convention. The convention would likely be the publisher?
- Instead of using the abbreviation PEPAM, can the publisher field state the full name of the agency?
- ref 74 (French) Jacques Diatta (January 7, 2007). "Qui pour sauver Diogué-Nikine-Carabane?". Association d'Aide au Développement du Diembering. http://wikiwix.com/cache/?url=http://diembering-aadd.com/index.php?option=com_content%26task=view%26id=13%26Itemid=1. Retrieved November 19, 2009. ) is a deadlink
Karanacs (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm really sad to say this, especially considering how close this FAC appears to be to its completion, however my commitments outside Wikipedia have caught up with me and I will not be able to begin addressing the remaining concerns for at least another week. When I nominated this article back in November, I had hoped that I could finish addressing the reviewers' concerns over the holidays before things started up again in the new year. If the FAC can wait another week or two for me to do the remaining legwork, I would be grateful, however I understand that this FAC has already gone on for nearly two months. If the FAC cannot wait that long and the remaining concerns are sufficient to keep the article from being promoted, I will simply have to renominate the article at a future date. Thank you for all your hard work and constructive criticism on the article thus far. Neelix (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for keeping the FAC open until I was able to begin addressing these concerns. With respect to the concerns listed under the heading "A few more things on the existing sources":
- I have added the authors and publishers for ref 17 and ref 101.
- Ref 20 doesn't appear to be a deadlink to me. When I click on it, the webpage loads properly. Despite having been produced by the US State Department, the citation is correct; the title is in French.
- I haven't been successful in discovering any other sources which document the population of reptiles and fish located on or surrounding the island. Is the Kassoumay citation insufficient?
- I have switched the publisher for ref 39 to the name of the conference.
- I have unabbreviated PEPAM.
- Like ref 20, ref 74 doesn't appear to be a deadlink when I click on it. Is this possibly a browser problem?
- I will try to address your other concerns throughout the rest of today. Neelix (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect to the concerns listed under the heading "More questions/comments":
- I will try to address your other concerns throughout the rest of today. Neelix (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added an author to the Sénégal et Gambie citation.
- I have added ISBNs to all of the citations for books which were published after 1966 (when ISBNs were first introduced).
- I'm not sure which citation you're referring to when you say "Entrepreneurs en Vedette". Would you mind providing the ref number?
- I've gone through the reference and bibliography sections, adding more citation information in places and making some corrections. I believe the citations are well-formatted now.
- I'm not sure how to mark the two doctoral theses as such. Should I simply append "- a doctoral thesis" to the citations?
- There was also one concern I forgot to address in the section under the heading "A few more things on the existing sources": the Teranga source. I have ordered this article through my local library, however it will likely take some time to arrive. Until it does, if you are sufficiently concerned about the advertising nature of the article, the statement that Tourists are not as attracted to the island for its mangroves as for the coconut trees which line its beaches, as featured on many of Carabane's postcards can simply be removed from the article; this information is not especially important. I do, however, believe that the article is an appropriate source for the statement that Some tour guides falsely claim that this is Auguste Léopold Protet, no matter whether the article is entirely an advertisement or not. Neelix (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reviewed the journal articles and book sources you have gathered about Carabane. Thank you for taking the time to do that. I have added information about Bertrand-Bocandé from Greater France to the article, and I have added information about French-Portuguese competition from Senegambia and the Atlantic Slave Trade to the article. I have looked over Identity Matters: Ethnic and Sectarian Conflict, but I'm not sure what to add to the article from it. The information it contains does not appear to be specific to Carabane and might be better suited to the Jola people article or the Casamance article. The question of whether Casamance is part of Senegal or not is already found on the article in a sense more specific to Carabane: the statement that the island no longer fits into any category of the administrative structure decreed by the Senegalese government. I think the article already has enough information about the Jola and the broader Casamance area and that having more would be tangential to the topic at hand. Nonetheless, if you strongly disagree with my assessment, I would be happy to include more information on either of these topics. The other books you mention are not fully accessible online, therefore I would have to order them through my local library in order to add information from them to the article. I am willing to do this, however it would take some time for me to receive these sources. Does the article require the additional contextualization that these sources might offer in order to attain featured article status? Neelix (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There was also one concern I forgot to address in the section under the heading "A few more things on the existing sources": the Teranga source. I have ordered this article through my local library, however it will likely take some time to arrive. Until it does, if you are sufficiently concerned about the advertising nature of the article, the statement that Tourists are not as attracted to the island for its mangroves as for the coconut trees which line its beaches, as featured on many of Carabane's postcards can simply be removed from the article; this information is not especially important. I do, however, believe that the article is an appropriate source for the statement that Some tour guides falsely claim that this is Auguste Léopold Protet, no matter whether the article is entirely an advertisement or not. Neelix (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – A straight translation from the French Wikipedia without reading the original sources should not be made a featured article on the English Wikipedia. Simple as that. A nominator should know what is in their sources, both for writing the article itself and for responding to questions about the content. That simply cannot happen when the nominator doesn't even understand the language the sources are in. We, therefore, are left guessing as to whether the sources have been well-represented, in content and tone. That just isn't good enough. All of the sources should be checked by someone who understands the languages used; preferably, the person would be an uninvolved third party. Apparently this is happening now, but I won't feel comfortable seeing this be represented as our best work until that process is complete. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not certain that I understand your objection. You say that a "straight translation from the French Wikipedia without reading the original sources should not be made a featured article on the English Wikipedia," however all the original sources have been read by Ji-Elle, an editor of both the French and English Wikipedias. You also state that "the nominator doesn't even understand the language the sources are in." This is not true; I am well-versed in the French language, as my translation of this extensive article should demonstrate. All this discussion assumes that I have not engaged with the original sources; admittedly, I have not fully read all of them, but I have gone through most as most are available online. I have found no inconsistencies. We are not "left guessing as to whether the sources have been well-represented, in content and tone" because Ji-Elle can easily vouch for the accurate representation of all the sources, including those sources to which I do not have access. Neelix (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you get Ji-Elle to make a statement here? Not that I distrust you, but I would like to hear it from Ji-Elle him/herself that they can "vouch for the accurate representation of all the sources, including those sources to which [you] do not have access". Dabomb87 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have contacted Ji-Elle, and she has responded below in the section entitled "News from France". Neelix (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you get Ji-Elle to make a statement here? Not that I distrust you, but I would like to hear it from Ji-Elle him/herself that they can "vouch for the accurate representation of all the sources, including those sources to which [you] do not have access". Dabomb87 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The translation may be accurate, and it may reflect the sources, but it is far from idiomatic. One example from many: "Solar lighting operates on the wide roads even though there are no cars on the island to drive on them." --Malleus Fatuorum 03:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not understand your objection. What is wrong with the sentence you quote from the article? Neelix (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try this one then: "Several brief interim governments succeeded after Vargas's suicide". What does "succeeded" mean to you? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I'll simply point out that the subject of the sentence I first objected to is "solar lighting", which doesn't "operate" on any roads, wide or narrow, and "them" appears to be referring back to the subject of the sentence, implying that there are no cars on the island able to drive over the solar lighting. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize if I'm missing something obvious; I still don't understand. The quotation about Vargas's suicide does not appear in the article. Neelix (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're absolutely right, my apologies. I was looking at two articles at once and got them confused. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I understand a little better; the use of the word "them" is ambiguous and might be reworded to "these roads." I am less clear about the problem with the word "operates"; what do you mean by your statement that solar lighting "doesn't 'operate' on any roads"? Neelix (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're absolutely right, my apologies. I was looking at two articles at once and got them confused. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize if I'm missing something obvious; I still don't understand. The quotation about Vargas's suicide does not appear in the article. Neelix (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it does, but it sounds rather strange, and I can't imagine anyone ever saying it like that. More usual would be to say something like "Although there are no cars on the island to drive on them, the wide roads are illuminated by solar lighting". --Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reworded the sentence in question on the article; please let me know if it meets with your approval. You began this discussion stating that this sentence is only one of many which need to be altered. I notice that you have since altered many sentences in the article yourself. Do any remain which you still deem lacking in clarity? Neelix (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it does, but it sounds rather strange, and I can't imagine anyone ever saying it like that. More usual would be to say something like "Although there are no cars on the island to drive on them, the wide roads are illuminated by solar lighting". --Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be perfectly honest Neelix, I'm teetering on the verge of striking my oppose. Not sure I'm yet ready to support ... but let me take another look through. It's an informative article that I enjoyed reading in any event. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Is this article using metric or imperial as its primary units of measurement? I'd have thought metric, but some sections are using imperial, whereas others use metric. Really ought to be consistent. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just switched the only instance of imperial I could find to metric. Do you see others which remain unconverted? Neelix (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bonjour tout le monde,
My English is poor, I admit. Nevertheless, I was able to appreciate the translation made by Neelix and I did read through this discussion page. Unfortunately I must have missed something, as I can't understand what is wrong with the sources, according to your standards...
Bien cordialement, Ji-Elle (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing wrong with the sources that I can see, it's just that not all of us are able to read French. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've left a note on Ji-Elle's talk page; if she happens to speak Spanish, I will try to explain better the concerns there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good informative article in my opinion.--Edward130603 (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. All of my earlier reservations about this article have been cheerfully dealt with thanks largely to the nominator's hard work and persistence. Deserves to be promoted now I think. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Karanacs 19:24, 12 January 2010 [24].
- Nominator(s): Colds7ream (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to, for the fourth occasion, put International Space Station forward for consideration as a Featured Article, as it represents a Vital topic in what I feel is a comprehensive and accurate way, with a plethora of references and a format which meets all requirements in the Manual of Style. Since the last FAC was prematurely closed six or so months ago, a lot more work has been completed on this article, including a sixth Peer Review which identified and fixed a number of issues, a copyedit and a general cleanup of citation formatting. A few more sections have been added and a couple of daughter articles have sprouted to assist in ensuring the article covers every pertinent topic, and the article has been kept updated to match operations and continuing assembly of the station on orbit. I hope that, on this fourth occasion, the FAC process will find this article suitable, and look forward to everyone's comments. Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Recent discussions
- Comments -
- The last FAC left these sources out for other reviewers to decide for themselves (note I did check to make sure they were still being used in the article):
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN04/wn092404.html (also lacks a publisher) Same site in current ref 112 and lacks a publisher there too.
- Added publisher, reliability is via the University of Maryland. Colds7ream (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But it specifically says at the bottom of the page "Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the University, but they should be." which seems to imply this is not backed by the university. So is it really published by the University of Maryland? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- [25]. Colds7ream (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- [25]. Colds7ream (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But it specifically says at the bottom of the page "Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the University, but they should be." which seems to imply this is not backed by the university. So is it really published by the University of Maryland? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added publisher, reliability is via the University of Maryland. Colds7ream (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.scienceinschool.org/2008/issue10/iss- Please see [26]. Colds7ream (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.astronautix.com/index.html- Replaced. Colds7ream (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 41. Colds7ream (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced. Colds7ream (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2008/12/13/ad-astra-fly-vasimr-engine-iss/- Replaced. Colds7ream (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With?
- Ref 82. Colds7ream (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With?
- Replaced. Colds7ream (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://suzymchale.com/kosmonavtka/
- http://old.spaceonline.tv/isscom/isscom038.txt
- Simply because these are the only references I can find - they match up with the NASA diagram provided in the ISS reference guide, and I felt that a paragraph based on these would be better than 'the Russian bits have some cool radio stuff too...'. This is the trouble with the ROS - Roskosmos is considerably more secretive than NASA. Colds7ream (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.glinx.com/~sherm/spacestation_observation.htm- This has the same backup as Heavens-Above - see when an ISS pass is going to be visible to you on Heavens-Above, then step outside at the appropriate time. Not only will the ISS be in the exact place Heavens-Above says it will, it'll look exactly as this page describes it. Physical checks - a wonderful thing on the Internet. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://spaceweather.com/
- See the author's bio at [27]. Colds7ream (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See the author's bio at [27]. Colds7ream (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.universetoday.com/- See [28]. Colds7ream (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would prefer to see something from a third-party reliable source. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed - this info is contained within source 120 anyway. Colds7ream (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would prefer to see something from a third-party reliable source. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See [28]. Colds7ream (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.mosnews.com/world/2009/05/21/1844/- Removed. Just trying to mix up the refs, but fair enough. Colds7ream (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/- Replaced with Ref 140. Colds7ream (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN04/wn092404.html (also lacks a publisher) Same site in current ref 112 and lacks a publisher there too.
Please spell out abbreviations in the references, I noted "OUP" in ref 32 (I'm assuming Oxford University Press? But most folks aren't going to be a "source geek" like myself...) Also CSA in current ref 69 (International Space Station).- Done. Colds7ream (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 44 (Chris Jones) is a book source, and you've handily put in a amazon.com link to the sales page, but you don't give a page number for the information. It's 288 pages, needs a page number.- No idea, removed. Colds7ream (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 121 (New NASA boss..) deadlinks. (newspaper isn't italicised either)Current ref 124 (Rich Philips) has the publisher run into the link title, it needs to be separate.Current ref 132 (Tariqu Malick) seems to be lacking a link, or is it the same as current ref 131 above it? If so, shouldn't it be combined?Current refs 144 and 145 (Justin Ray) lack last access dates.- All above done. Colds7ream (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The content is comprehensive and presented in a balanced fashion, and the prose engages the reader. The photos are fantastic! (sdsds - talk) 08:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The article is well written and includes lots of comprehensive information. I second Sdsds on the photos. I feel the article meets the FA requirements. DR04 (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good from the technical view.
- No dab links or dead external links—a tough feat here, but you did it.
- All images have alt text where needed. Too much text for me to want to check further (sorry). The "Space stations and habitats" navbox image should probably have none, but that's minor.
- I think I've dealt with this. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref dates are at least mostly Day Month Year; verify that no more Month Day, Year or ISO style dates have crept in (I changed one).
--an odd name 02:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – My concerns with the article were raised during the last peer review and some follow-on comments. Those were addressed satisfactorily and so I'm happy to lend my support for an FA status on this article.—RJH (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note " ... the photos are fantastic ..." and "includes lots of comprehensive information" will not get this article promoted in the absence of discussion of the issues about reliability of sources raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources requiring discussion:
- http://www.heavens-above.com/
- Can be validated physically by downloading pass data for a satellite, then seeing if the pass data matches the satellite's actual orbit via observing it, which it always does. Colds7ream (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can also verify by using NASA's http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/sightings/index.html but no one uses it, because it's inaccessible JAVA crap. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can be validated physically by downloading pass data for a satellite, then seeing if the pass data matches the satellite's actual orbit via observing it, which it always does. Colds7ream (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.astronomyexpert.co.uk/
- http://www.thespacereview.com/index.html
- http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN04/wn092404.html
- http://suzymchale.com/kosmonavtka/
- Matches the communication systems diagram in NASA's ISS reference guide: File:ISS Communication Systems.png. Colds7ream (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://old.spaceonline.tv/isscom/isscom038.txt
- Also matches the ISS reference guide diagram. Colds7ream (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.glinx.com/~sherm/spacestation_observation.htm
- Can be validated physically by observing an ISS pass; the description given here matches what is seen during an ISS pass. Colds7ream (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://spaceweather.com/
- http://www.heavens-above.com/
- Sources requiring discussion:
- Support - Article has improved greatly. Reads well and above explanation of sources looks good to me. --mav 23:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - article is an interesting read and comprehensive. The sources identified above as being potentially problematic seem to me to satisfy our reliability/verifiability requirements. That said, should others feel otherwise, I think the statements they support could generally be removed entirely without ill effect to the article as a whole. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments re certain sources (a partial response to Sandy's plea):
- Heavens above - I think this is possibly OK. If I have interpreted third-party sites correctly, the site is recommended by staff at Sydney Observatory (see http://www.sydneyobservatory.com.au/blog/?p=134).
- Great, thanks. Colds7ream (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.astronomyexpert.co.uk/ - Looks unreliable to me, in the sense that the reliability of content is unclear, and i couldn't find recommendations in favour of it (i did, however, after chasing some links down rabbit holes, find a less than happy customer of a claimed founder of the site). I would find an alternative source or ditch the relevant content.
- OK, I've removed this, having discovered this is also described in the ISS reference guide. Colds7ream (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bob Park - Assuming his CV is not fake, then this material is reliable to establish the opinions of Bob Park: it seems fine to cite it when reporting him as one of the ISS's critics and why he was a critic. I'm not convinced it's such a great idea to be relying on this material to establish facts. Thus the second instance of footnote 25 i think is not appropriate as a reliable source. I think the first instance is problematic in terms of undue weight. Park's very brief comments on his page are used as a cite for this: "This large cost has meant that the ISS programme has been the target of various criticisms over its financing, research capabilities and technical design". The ISS is one of the largest scientific and engineering endeavours of modern civilisation. If I'm going to see a citation for criticism, it should be much more heavyweight than an individual physicist. This is egregious undue weight. For criticisms to be mentioned in the lead, i'd be expecting open letters from scientific societies, or an editorial in Nature, or a critical congressional report. Anything less than that isn't serious in this content, i would suggest.
- Would something like this be more appropriate: [29]? We can't just not have a section on criticism, as this would present us with a heap of bias... Colds7ream (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I moved the Bob Park reference so that it only cites for statements made directly by him, and added in the Popular Mechanics reference to replace it in the other locations. Colds7ream (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Pop Mechanics reference is a significant improvement, and certainly avoids reliability questions. I'd want to think more about whether the criticisms are being given undue weight, but one quick point that would deal with this emerges from the PM article itself: it says at one point "The other group, an independent review committee appointed by the prestigious National Academy of Sciences (NAS), issued an even more stinging rebuke". If you can find such a source and cite it directly, as well as the Popular Mechanics piece, i would say that ties up this issue pretty well. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this the one you're referring to? - [30] Colds7ream (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added as ref 26. Colds7ream (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, that's it. Good. Verification of this section is now significantly improved. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Continuing this theme, I tried to click through to cite 111 ("A waste of space"), and the link didn't work for me. i then went to 115 ("The trouble with space stations") - and realised the source was another one where reliability has been questioned during the review process. My quick glance suggests this does not rate as a reliable source. In the case of the article's report on "a panel session last week at the Military and Aerospace Programmable Logic Device (MAPLD) International Conference", it would be better to go to refereed publications by some of the esteemed contributors like Roger Launius. If there are no such publications covering criticisms of the ISS, that should tell us something :-)
- Will work on this as soon as. Colds7ream (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replaced "A Waste of Space" with the Popular Mechanics reference - will this do as a published editorial? Will keep looking nevertheless. Colds7ream (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also removed ref 115 and the statement it was supporting. Colds7ream (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's good. Do keep looking (and see my other reply above) but this is looking better. I may try and come back for another look in next two days. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get to the other source issues. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Coming back to sources: one of the web sites queried by both Ealdgyth and SandyG was http://www.glinx.com/~sherm/spacestation_observation.htm. Colds7ream's response is essentially "anyone can verify its reliablity by checking the site's predictions against their own observations of the sky". I note neither Ealdgyth nor Sandy have responded to this argument by striking their concern, so I presume they don't accept this argument as adequate. Colds7ream's argument did put me in mind of one of the examples of acceptable common knowledge: "Plain sight observations that can be made from public property". I actually wondered whether this could apply here, but if not, is it not at least enough as a reliability test for the citation in question? I'd be interested in Ealdgyth or Sandy G's response. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, although it could possibly be left uncited under common knowledge, if you cite it, it needs to be to a reliable source. The problem could be solved by appending in addition the NASA site that verifies it, and moving Heaven-above to an external link, as external link requirements are lower than source requirements. Or it could be left uncited and use the common knowledge thing. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've removed the Glinx link regarding sightings as common knowledge, and added the NASA applet as a supplementary source in the infobox to back up Heavens-Above. Anything else left to do? Colds7ream (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Continuing this dicussion. I was looking for an alternative source for the claim that the ISS is now visible during daylight. At present this is sourced to Spaceweather.com. Reliability was queried, and the fact that the site's author also works as a contributor to some of NASA's online material has not so far led the reviewer to strike their concern. I haven't come up with an alternative source, but while looking I found this, which appears to show that the European Space Agency thinks Heavens-above is so reliable, they use it to help the public find the ISS, rather than build their own app. It is likewise recommended by the Western Australian observatory. For me this seals the reliability of Heavens-above, so if it is needed as a cite for anything, go ahead.
- A partial response to Ealdgyth. It seems strange that we are prepared to allow "Plain sight observations that can be made from public property" as a basis for unreferenced facts, but not to allow that as a grounds for contributing to assessing the reliability of a source for a referenced fact. I don't agree on this. My view is that if a plain site observation can be made that confirms something claimed by a source, that should be counted in the source's favour in terms of reliability. I am not suggesting that it is enough on its own, but it should not be disregarded.
- Back to the 'visible in daylight' claim. First, this is again able to be substantiated by "plain sight" observation - as is demonstrated by a google search, that turns up various blogs and even youtube videos showing the phenomenon. However, I dislike the approach taken in response to my previous suggestion, which implies no citation is better than an allegedly unreliable citation. One day the ISS will be de-orbited, and "plain sight" will no longer apply. The best I can offer so far is Crikey articles posted by journalist Ben Sandilands. Crikey in general is certainly reliable, and Sandilands has posted this.
- I had been all set to oppose on the grounds of limited use of published books and articles, then I read Colds7ream's comments at the last Peer Review, and was pursuaded. Not sure if I'll have time to look at remaining reliable source issues, but i think they've been narrowed down to a small enough number that i would not let them prevent promotion. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not write policies, I just try to point them out for others. Don't forget the standard at FAC isn't just meeting WP:V or WP:RS, it's "high quality" that fits with the subject. And, unfortunately, the standard isn't that statements MUST be cited, even if to a less than stellar source, but that statements likely to be challenged must be cited. Something that can be observed, well, that really does fall into the "how likely is this to be challenged" category. So, then you get a war between the FA criteria which require higher quality sources and the fact that the information isn't exactly likely to be challenged because it's readily observable by anyone. In the very limited number of cases like this, it is easier to just go with the "not likely to be challenged so doesn't need a cite" rather than kill the nominator trying to find a non-Self-published source. Of course, I can always not give folks advice that will help their nominations pass or not work with them to try to resolve issues without requiring a million hoops to be jumped through, but I do try to work with the various policies, guidelines, and criteria. The whole issue of reliable sources isn't set in stone, and there is a lot of gray area and stuff. If you, as a reviewer, are satisfied that the sources meet the various criteria, that is good. HOwever, it may be that what satisfies you, won't satisify other reviewers, so a lot of times I leave sourcing concerns out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. (shrugs) Quite honestly, I"m really tired of being dragged through hoops on this FAC, and will just leave the rest of the concerns out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. (which, incidentally, was basically where things stood before, except we've managed to whittle the list down a bit more. So, whatever. It's the holidays, and I'm tired and cranky and really need to be doing other stuff, like other FACs, rather than debating this sort of thing. It's off my watchlist, consider the rest of the concerns left up to reviewer descretion. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It has improved significantly since the last time I saw it. Ruslik_Zero 14:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'CommentsSupport':
- In the hygiene section the locations of the toilets are said to be in Zvezda and Harmony, but isn't the US toilet in Destiny until Tranquility arrives?
- In the table of the future modules, I believe that pictures of Rassvet (MRM1) are now available (especially since I saw something about the module arriving in the US for launch preparations) online, but I am unsure of their copyright status, please advise.
- Also, could we get an image of an MPLM berthed to the station for the PMM?
- I may have completely missed this, but I do not believe that there is a prominent link for List of ISS spacewalks (a Featured List) in the assembly section or in a see also section for that matter, anywhere in this article? The statistics on the spacewalks and duration would seem relevant enough to be mentioned in this article.
I may have more later, but deal with these at a minimum for my support. -MBK004 00:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All above done, I believe. Colds7ream (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I have supported because in my second look through the article I did not find anything else. Admittedly I review for content accuracy and omissions, but from my reviews of the previous FACs and PRs, it is clearly evident that the improvement of this article is significant and I do not see anything else that should keep the article from becoming Featured. -MBK004 23:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All above done, I believe. Colds7ream (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not thrilled with the writing. Strong oppose.
- "golden" or "gold-coloured"—take your pick, but not both at once.
- Done. Colds7ream (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "In-between the radiators"—why the hyphen?
- Done. Colds7ream (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd remove this comma: "modules, arranged".
- Done. You do realise these three are in the alt text, right? User:Eubulides, alt text king, has cleared these. Colds7ream (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the clumsy noun plus -ing constructions; please audit throughout.
- Sorry, what? Colds7ream (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you visit the link I provided? After working through the exercises you'll have a much better idea. I corrected about four in the diff. Tony (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Watch out for repeated links, sciency "telegram" language", and the overuse of initial caps.
- It's a scientific/technological article, there's not much that can be done to avoid this.
- There's everything to be done to avoid this dreadful telegram habit of omitting "the". It is not English. Scientists think they are free to do it, for some reason. Journal editors seem to be too ignorant to call a halt to it. Tony (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is gigantic. How long is the full article? I'm tuckered out after a few paragraphs. Tony (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is large, because in every previous assessment people complained that it was too short. Now others are complaining its too long. As I've said before, I clearly can't please everybody. Colds7ream (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur. Too short, too long, there is no pleasing everybody. Every review we seem to alternate on this issue. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The length of the lead seems appropriate to me. It does contain a high proportion of lengthy and/or technical words, which may make the reading more of a slog. But it is a technical article so some of that is unavoidable.—RJH (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur. Too short, too long, there is no pleasing everybody. Every review we seem to alternate on this issue. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I think that all instances of "long-term", "daily", "safe" and "efficient, reliable" can be removed from first paragraph of the lead without harming the content. Most of these are relative terms and hence vague, while the "daily" seems unnecessary. That should help shorten it a little. – RJH (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was bold and performed some judicious trimming.—RJH (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You called me back promtply ... so ... the rest is done too? My diff and the points above were examples from just the top. Tony (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, if you find anything you don't like (no-one else has seen any problems with the prose), don't hesitate to be WP:BOLD and fix it. Colds7ream (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current Status: 7 supports to 1 oppose, sourcing issues dealt with by several corrections and reviewer comments. WP:CONSENSUS has been established, I believe. Colds7ream (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great job! This is a very thorough and informative article!! Much improvement since the last FAC. Reywas92Talk 03:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) It's not a vote-count. Please read the instructions, which clearly point out that addressing opposes is what matters, not the number of supports.
(2) That "no one" else has bothered to critique the prose is neither here nor there. Thanks for asking, but I won't "be bold"; reviewers are under no obligation to do your work for you; I would rather spread my reviewing around more of this avalanche of FACs. Thus, it is up to you to bring the work up to standard.
- See below. Colds7ream (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check of one short section:
- Another noun plus -ing that is a little clumsy (didn't I point this out above?): "With the fall of the Soviet Union ending the Cold War and Space Race".
- See below. Colds7ream (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Similar budgetary difficulties were being faced by other nations with space station projects, prompting American government officials to start negotiations with partners in Europe, Russia, Japan, and Canada"—spot the redundant word. You could probably lose "government" (officials aren't corporate, usually). Were those countries partners before they took up the US offer to collaborate?
- Nope, I like 'government'. Makes the paragraph clearer to new readers. Rest dealt with. Colds7ream (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- multi-national: no hyphen these days, and no comma after it here.
- Done. Colds7ream (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't AmEng be used? "programme"?
- See the many pages of discussion on the talk page and talk page archives. Colds7ream (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For next time, "however" is usually not better stuck in the middle of clauses. Tony (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am more than aware of the fact that it's not a vote count, thanks (in any case, its not a count, its a landslide). Lots of people have looked at and cleared the prose; the trouble we have now is yourpet hates which no-one else has a problem with; this is the problem with the FAC process; one person can bring up an issue which no-one else thinks is a problem, and it can fail a perfectly good article despite what everyone else has said. The idea here is to form a consensus - what you're saying is, in effect, "no, I just don't like it, take it away!" - and the worst part is that it'll probably be failed because of it. We've written an extensive, detailed article on a current, large and dynamic topic, which has taken one and a half years to compile (with extensive discussion of the en-GB and en-US issue if you'd bothered to look on the talk page), and you don't like it because you personally don't like 'ing' words? Please. Give me a break. I'm not looking for you to do 'my' work for me. I just want you to recognise the work that has already been put in; I'd be grateful if you weren't so patronising. This little paragraph has probably earned the article a fail, but heck, it needed to be said, and for my stress I needed to say it. Enjoy. Colds7ream (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While Tony raises some vaild points that should be addressed, comments should not be nit-picky either. Although FAs are Wikipedia's best work, which this article clearly is, they are not Wikipedia's completely perfect work. When discussing prose issues, try to point out more things that are either wrong or confusing and fewer things that are perceptions of style. Reywas92Talk 16:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless, I have again asked for assistance at GOCE, if one of them might look specifically over the issues mentioned by Tony. I'm not sure which GOCE editors last reviewed the article, otherwise I would have contacted them directly. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good luck with that - I've had the article listed there for months with not so much as a whiff of a response. Colds7ream (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, in addition to Tony1's concerns, there has been no image review as far as I can tell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm no image expert, but since nearly every single image is PD from NASA, the only problems I found were File:Atlantis Docked to Mir.jpg, which appears to be copyrighted, being a Russian-taken image; File:MRM-1 at RSC Energia.jpg, also a copyrighted Russian image; and File:ISScrewtimeutilization.png, which was made by a Wikipedian but is unlabeled. Reywas92Talk 20:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Atlantis Docked to Mir.jpg - FUR that I support, but
- File:MRM-1 at RSC Energia.jpg - FUR. I say we remove this one. Image doesn't seem required. The americans will take a picture of it once it is docked to the station, so it is replaceable.
- File:ISScrewtimeutilization.png - I have notified the author on his talk page, but he seems to have disappeared since october. This will likely need to be done again, or have to be removed.
- —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll happily remove the utilisation graph, but the MRM-1 image was added in response to a request by MBK004 above. And I think comments from other reviewers rather render Tony's concerns opposed. Colds7ream (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not contest the fact that a MRM1 image would be nice, I just don't think that this MRM1 image is allowed per our NFCC (because it is replaceable at some point in the future). And MBK004 did say: "I am unsure of their copyright status, please advise." It probably shouldn't even be in the MRM-1 article. I cannot find an alternative image of MRM1 btw. It has entered the States, but only NASA images of the transportbox arriving at KSC have been published, and none of checkout images. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the image from the article and have tagged it as disputed FUR. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Images should now be cleared, unless someone disputes the FUR of the MIR+shuttle image. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the image from the article and have tagged it as disputed FUR. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not contest the fact that a MRM1 image would be nice, I just don't think that this MRM1 image is allowed per our NFCC (because it is replaceable at some point in the future). And MBK004 did say: "I am unsure of their copyright status, please advise." It probably shouldn't even be in the MRM-1 article. I cannot find an alternative image of MRM1 btw. It has entered the States, but only NASA images of the transportbox arriving at KSC have been published, and none of checkout images. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you spent more time fixing the prose, or better, finding an independent copy-editor, and less time sniping at me, the article might by now have been sufficiently improved. Instead, you harp on about the number of supports. Please read the instructions, which make it clear that this is not the essence of the process. In other words, a zillion supports count for nothing if there are still issues to be fixed. Tony (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Tony, I'm not sure that's fair. Of course the number of supports are not the essence of the process, but i don't think that was what Colds7ream's 29 Dec remark implied. The instructions do say:
For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:
- actionable objections have not been resolved;
- consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
- insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.
The range of supports is therefore relevant to assessing the building of consensus, and opposes are not the key issue; rather, "actionable objections" that "have not been resolved" are important. I'm not saying that all objections necessarily have been addressed, but i thought Colds7eam's initial comment was OK to test the waters. Colds7ream, Tony is correct in that the prose could still improve, and I'll see what i can do. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's right: the last para says it all. Did we really need to wade through that huge quotation to get to the relevant bit? Tony (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport
:*"The first resident crew, Expedition 1, arrived in November 2000, midway between STS-92 and STS-97, which added two segments of the station's Integrated Truss Structure, the Z1 and P6 trusses." Can an editor who knows about the construction look at this - does the clause "which added..." refer to the actions of Expedition 1, the mission objective of STS-97, or some combination of these? It isn't clear.
- "...two Russian Strela cargo cranes, used for transferring parts and spacewalking cosmonauts around the exterior of the Russian Orbital Segment,..." Likewise this is unclear. Should this read "used for transferring parts by spacewalking cosmonauts..."? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More. "The station provides crew quarters for each member of permanent Expedition crews, with two 'sleep stations' in the Russian Orbital Segment and four spread around the rest of the station, which will eventually be moved into Tranquillity when it is added to the station." Can someone check whether this means the four spread around the station will be moved to Tranquillity, or all six? Current punctuation implies all six - just wanted to check this.
- Update needed for this I think: "This will increase to five in early December, when another Soyuz, carrying Oleg Kotov, Timothy Creamer and Soichi Noguchi arrives."
Finally, there is this sentence in the lead: "The various sections of the station are controlled by several mission control centres on the ground, including MCC-H, TsUP, Col-CC, ATV-CC, JEM-CC, HTV-CC and MSS-CC." This is an avalanche of inappropriate acronyms for a lay reader, and not necessary in the lead. I suggest this be changed to "The various sections of the station are controlled by mission control centres on the ground operated by the participating space agencies."
I have now been through with some copyediting and simplification. If my five points above can be addressed, I am a support. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleared these, I think. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, that looks better. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oppose — sorry. The prose is still not FA standard; there is redundancy ( eg "a course of") and vague uses of "various" and "variety". But, as Tony as already pointed out, there is a bigger problem caused by the plethora of fused participles, perhaps more easily understood as "noun plus -ing". I do not object to their occasional usage but the article is full of them. I am also concerned about concerns about the sources have not been fully addressed. In my humble opinion, the article still needs a thorough another copy-edit and concerns about sources addressed. Lastly, have I missed the image review? Was this done at the last FAC? Graham Colm Talk 23:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Who do you suggest does the copyedit, Graham? I can't, it's my prose, and I see no problem with it. The Guild of Copyeditors is worse than useless in responding to requests, and reviewers here bring up issues with the prose and then do nothing to help. I realise the FAC process is overworked, but if reviewers could be a bit more helpful, or there was more support available, things would improve exponentially. In all seriousness, I'm begging for help here - I CANNOT DO THIS ON MY OWN, and no-one seems to want to help out. I'd cite WP:BOLD and WP:SOFIXIT, but will just be shot down again. I've had it up to here with unhelpful editors in what's supposed to be a collaborative project, and am starting to flirt with thoughts of packing up and leaving. Colds7ream (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been much improved since my review a few days ago. I don't usually like to see extensive CE work during a "live" candidature, but I fully understand the nominator's frustration with regard to the lack of help. Yes, indeed this is a collaborative project, but here, at FAC, I think many reviewers expect most the collaborative work to have already been done. Some of Ealdgyth's reservations about sources remain, but I don't see any major obstacles. With regard to the FAC criteria, I have seen candidates that fall shorter than this promoted, so I ask myself this: Would I be proud to see this on the Main Page? I think so. Graham Colm Talk 22:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been much improved since my review a few days ago. I don't usually like to see extensive CE work during a "live" candidature, but I fully understand the nominator's frustration with regard to the lack of help. Yes, indeed this is a collaborative project, but here, at FAC, I think many reviewers expect most the collaborative work to have already been done. Some of Ealdgyth's reservations about sources remain, but I don't see any major obstacles. With regard to the FAC criteria, I have seen candidates that fall shorter than this promoted, so I ask myself this: Would I be proud to see this on the Main Page? I think so. Graham Colm Talk 22:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
I've been watching this FAC since the call for help was put out at the GOCE. Just to clarify: it's really difficult to jump into a large article at last moment to clean up prose. It's better to contact copyeditors individually from the list to find one with time and even better, some familiarity with the discipline/field. I work almost exclusively on articles related to the arts, so working on this article with a deadline, is more than daunting. Just thought I'd add an unsolicited opinion. That said, I can spend a little time working through the article bit by bit. First, however, I'd suggest the two back-to-back sentences that begin with "this" (unspecified pronouns) be recast with antecedents. See "This provides" & "This aspect" para 3, in Purpose.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said earlier, I had the article listed on the requests page on GOCE for literally months. No response whatsoever. Colds7ream (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Status check (response to immediately preceding comments).
- I have now made a third run through copyediting, and picking up some more overlinking.
- Other editor(s) appear to have weeded out fused participles that were a concern.
- Though not stated explicitly, I think the comments and actions of User:TheDJ have addressed the matter of images, unless anyone has further concerns.
- Substantial work has been done to deal with questions of source quality, both in eliminating some sources and improving the level of available information about others. It is hard to gauge from the text above just where the sources are at, so I may get this wrong, but here's my take:
- Sources queried by Ealdgyth and not subsequently struck out by her:
- In addition, Ealdgyth left unstruck http://spaceweather.com/, but stated "Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean reliable".
- Of these sources, the bobpark refs are now only used to substantiate the fact that Bob Park (a physicist) has made certain criticism of the ISS program. I have suggested that they are reliable for this purpose. The nom has also bolstered this with other more significant refs about criticisms.
- There is a later list of "Sources requiring discussion" in the FAC discussion - i'm uncertain who put that list there. Although it is later in the review, I think it has been superceded by subsequent discussion and actions by editors including Colds7ream:
- http://www.heavens-above.com/ - i identified that this site is recommended and used by professional observatories and the European Space Agency. I would rate this as reliable.
- http://www.astronomyexpert.co.uk/ has been removed.
- http://www.glinx.com/~sherm/spacestation_observation.htm has been removed.
- In other respects the list is the same as that of Ealdgyth, above. It appears therefore that there are three sources still in use in the article queried by Ealdgyth for which only the nom has made any response. I am reproducing those responses here:
-
- "Simply because these are the only references I can find - they match up with the NASA diagram provided in the ISS reference guide, and I felt that a paragraph based on these would be better than 'the Russian bits have some cool radio stuff too...'. This is the trouble with the ROS - Roskosmos is considerably more secretive than NASA. Colds7ream (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)"[reply]
-
Personally I would recommend Colds7ream or others weed out these last three if possible (particularly thespacereview, unless third party publications endorsing it can be found), but if those items are the only sources available on the ROS info, then I'm not sure that weeding them and the associated content out is the best option. Either way I would not hold up the FA on that issue alone. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the summarising, Hamiltonstone. The spacereview reference and statement have already been removed, and the ROS sources are indeed the only ones I can find; I'd rather not remove all the ROS comms data if possible, if only to avoid taking an exclusively US-based viewpoint on the article. Colds7ream (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Still tiny images? I fixed two. The map of the world is soooo small: who on earth could make out the text on it? Try centering and boosting massively. If you have control of the original, please enlarge the text. Tony (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Argh. Fair point. After a certain amount of stuffing around and reading Wikipedia:Picture tutorial, I did some resizing of those where i thought greater size was valuable for making out the image content. If I've stomped all over some aspect of how WP tries to present images, feel free to tell me where to read about it, then revert. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Still tiny images? I fixed two. The map of the world is soooo small: who on earth could make out the text on it? Try centering and boosting massively. If you have control of the original, please enlarge the text. Tony (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I'm not a participant of the FAC process, and really have no knowledge of how it works (and, frankly, I have little interest in it). I mention this point because I'm not going to stick around here to debate my opinion, and I'm not sure that my opinion really counts for anything here. All I really wanted to say is that I don't think that an article that has seemingly been appropriated by some sort of quixotic nationalist interests by imposing the use of British English on it ought to be a Featured Article. If it was a subject tied directly to the UK, or there was some compelling reason to use a nationalistic variety of English, then I wouldn't care, but that's not the situation here. I wish you guys good will in improving the article, especially since it's a subject area that I have a ton of interest in, but this issue really bugs me.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 20:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Please see Talk:International Space Station/Archive 7#RfC: British English versus American English for this Article. Colds7ream (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You use that link as though it actually addresses the concern that people are bringing up. Since this is obviously an issue for many people, don't you think that it's worth considering? I'd love this article to be featured, and I'd love to help get it there, but this issue that you've created really wrecks it.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You use that link as though it actually addresses the concern that people are bringing up. Since this is obviously an issue for many people, don't you think that it's worth considering? I'd love this article to be featured, and I'd love to help get it there, but this issue that you've created really wrecks it.
- Please see Talk:International Space Station/Archive 7#RfC: British English versus American English for this Article. Colds7ream (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We did discuss it. The result was no consensus to change. It took ages and proved to be a major distraction. The version of English doesn't matter - American can read British English and Britons can read American English. What exactly is the problem here? Colds7ream (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This has got absolutely nothing to do with regard to the FA criteria and I think that the FAC delegates will pay little attention to this point. I quote: The English Wikipedia does not prefer any major national variety of the language. Within the English Wikipedia no variety is considered more correct than another. Editors should understand that the differences between the varieties are largely superficial. Which is from WP:ENGVAR#National_varieties_of_English. PS. Who are these "many people"? Graham. Graham Colm Talk 23:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve - Meets criteria. — James Kalmar 23:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Progress? Graham Colm appears to have partly struck out his concerns. On the image issue, as I commented earlier, unless anyone thinks otherwise the images appear to have been addressed by TheDJ. Graham comments that it needs another copyedit. The specific examples he left in his comment were: "there is redundancy ( eg "a course of") and vague uses of "various" and "variety"." I did a search, found no uses of "a course of" at all, one of "various" that i have removed, and two uses of "variety", both of them appropriate IMHO. I appreciate they were meant to be illustrative, but i was wondering whether that comment is now defunct after recent copyediting, and if so whether it might be struck through? I guess i'm wondering what type of redundancies or other copyediting issues reviewers think remain? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good news! We have an extensive copyedit ongoing! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Work is also underway to replace the Russian comm sources and remove other dodgily-sourced info from the section. A book has been found! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great article and everything I would expect from an FA. There isn't a book in the world without a typo, so I don't accept that incredibly minor grammatical errors should hold this up, and fwiw I think the lead is a perfect length for a complex subject. The whole article also makes a complex subject very accessible. If I may make one prose suggestion though; all 3 para's of the lead and several of the para's in the next couple of sections all open the same way... Just a thought. I'd also recommend that the objection listed above should be struck. Spelling has no bearing on this FAC and the person who did the most work on the article should get to choose. Nice work Ranger Steve (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much! :-) I've had a go at dealing with the paragraph starts in the lead - what do you think? Colds7ream (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent. Wasn't a major issue anyway, but I do think it looks better. Best of luck with this FAC. Ranger Steve (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Image check:
- File:Atlantis Docked to Mir.jpg is non-free content with a fair use rationale. Seems okay though. As of this review, all other images appear to be properly licensed under PD or CC.
Image Image:ISS Main Contributors.svg doesn't have 'alt' text.- Sorry I missed it.—RJH (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All images use a clear, detailed caption, except in the Pressurized modules section where no caption is necessary.
- File:Node 3 in SSPF.JPG has an upper case suffix, but that shouldn't be an issue. All other images are either jpg, png or svg.
- Optionally, File:MLM - ISS module.jpg and File:TVIS treadmill.jpg could use {{Information}} templates on the commons.
- Apart from possibly the second item, the images seem fine to me.—RJH (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The contributors map does have alt text, I'm sure: "A world map highlighting Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland in red and Brazil in pink. See adjacent text for details." Also, I've added an info template to File:MLM - ISS module.jpg. Colds7ream (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As for File:TVIS treadmill.jpg, image moved to Commons, high res version found, information template added. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Solejheyen (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: The copyedit is largely complete, the only thing remaining is the Russian communications system citations, which are being dealt with at Talk:International Space Station#ISS remaining issues. Colds7ream (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and that's that sorted too. Anybody got anything else they'd like us to fix? :-) Colds7ream (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, my opinion remains unchanged from the previous FAC. --GW… 20:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Status. Since I last commented on the status of the article above (7 Jan), several issues have been addressed:
- Extensive copyediting by User:Truthkeeper88, User:GrahamColm and User:RJHall, as well as ongoing (love that word) maintenance by Colds7ream and some copyediting and further overlink reduction by myself.
- Queried sources:
- http://www.thespacereview.com/index.html has been removed.
- http://suzymchale.com/kosmonavtka/ has been removed.
- http://old.spaceonline.tv/isscom/isscom038.txt has been removed.
- Rewriting of "communications" section to reflect the jettison of unreliable sources, and at least one new source. The changes are most obvious looking at this diff.
- Image review has been undertaken; thank you to User:RJHall.
- I have just re-run the script to check MOSDASHES, and checked dablinks again. All clear.
Tony's strong oppose precedes all these changes; everything else looks in order. For reviewers' information. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is using a template that is in userspace. Please move this to template space ASAP. Articles should never point to userspace. Karanacs (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please fix the measurement (meters cubed) which needs to have a conversion. The table on pressurized modules does not have citations; these need to be added for statistics, such as how many of X is present. And we need citations for the projected dates that the rest of the modules will be delivered. The table for that is devoid of citations. I've also made other MOS fixes (sentences shouldn't start with a number that isn't spelled out, etc). At this late stage in the game, I don't expect to see these types of problems. Karanacs (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the template, and the pressurised modules tables - both of them - have a citation or two on every line. There's not a single module uncited. I've also inserted a conversion template for the 1000m3 - is that the only one? I'd also like to say that the reason these things were there is because no-one has said anything about them before. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for being so prompt. Sorry, I totally missed the citations next to the pictures. Blame my poor tired eyes - there are a LOT of FACs to run through today. Karanacs (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for being so prompt. Sorry, I totally missed the citations next to the pictures. Blame my poor tired eyes - there are a LOT of FACs to run through today. Karanacs (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Karanacs 18:46, 12 January 2010 [31].
- Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I optimistically feel it meets the requirements set. A note: I appreciate the relatively few sources used in the article. This is because there are relatively few; he was forgotten for most of the 19th and 20th centuries, and only academically "rediscovered" in 1991. There are a few additional sources identified in the ODNB I could use, but I can't get access to them, it seems. Ironholds (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- For information on Garrow, see Landsman, "The Rise of the Contentious Spirit," 561- 64. Didn't you find anything useful in "The origins of adversary criminal trial" by Langbein? It seems to raise interesting points...
- I did, but it didn't discuss Garrow himself much. The information I could see (I may not have been paying much attention and missed something, I appreciate). I'm not quite sure where to get Landsman from, but I'll do a search.Ironholds (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, his "indisputabl[y]...massive impact on the modern, adversarial court system" isn't really explained or described in great detail. But I'll just raise that as a point to discuss.
- This is the problem; the sources I have all go (essentially) "Garrow was aggressive, as seen in case X when he did....", "Garrow set rules of evidence, as seen in case Y when he said to the jury..." but they don't actually discuss his importance in much detail, except to say that because of his status as a leading practitioner, new pupils followed his lead and it helped bring in an adversarial, evidence-based system. Ironholds (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern is that you've opted to be too cautious with respect to his contribution. I fully understand your caution, and in one way I applaud it. However, the reason why this is a concern for me is that... before yesterday or whenever, I had never heard of Garrow and didn't really have any crystallized understanding that the court system wasn't always "adversarial". Then when I read this, I was quite interested. This is cool stuff, to be frank. But the article left me with a hollow feeling. What... what were the changes, then? I would like to know what the distinguishing features of an adversarial system are, and how Garrow contributed. Now, of course there are two problems. The first is that a full explanation should be in the article on the adversarial system. Fair enough. But at least I could get two or three points, either one paragraph each, or each having two or three sentences in one longish paragraph. That would mean either an additional two or three paragraphs or one longish paragraph in this article. And the second reservation is (as you mentioned) that Garrow's contributions... just weren't closely recorded... because people don't always notice that history is being made. Fair enough again. However, "The origins of adversary criminal trial" by Langbein seemed to take the approach I am hoping for. It did mention at least two characteristics and said "It's not possible to clearly define Garrow's contributions, but...". It even offered a "people don't notice history" hedge. I'm hoping you can take an approach similar to Langbein's. I am making final tests now, but if you can't find the instances I am talking about in Langbein, I will try to find them... • Ling.Nut 04:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh, I see your point; thank you, by the way, for the emailed sources. I think a way to do it would be to expand on a) what the situation was pre-Garrow, b) what Garrow's attitude was and c) what the situation was post-Garrow; if you've got no problems with that format, I'll spend the next couple of days rejigging it. Ironholds (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, added more in; a heartfelt "thanks!" for the additional sources, by the way. Ironholds (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds perfect. I would also suggest adding one sentence that says something roughly like "Although contemporary documents do not establish clearly the degree of Garrow's impact on these trends, many sources suggest that his impact was <insert adjective>" followed by a modest example of the the blue-link parade or chorus line that we all know and love. • Ling.Nut 03:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the lead, or the impact? And if impact, advocacy or evidence? Ironholds (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "irregular relationship" euphemism.... no wait, you're probably referring to "Farrington confided to his diary that [Garrow's] marriage was 'somewhat irregular'" (Hostettler p. 60). I dunno if I would have presented this information in the same manner that you have.
- Fair enough; suggestions? Ironholds (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could we have the monetary sums expressed in modern values as well?
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a couple cites that suggest that either he coined the phrase "innocent until proved guilty," or at least his was the earliest recorded use of it.
- Could you link them? Ironholds (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are two: one two. It should be borne in mind, however, that several sources seem to suggest that this is not a completely settled fact. Heck, just Google it. • Ling.Nut 03:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Righto, done that. Ironholds (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The prose is pretty good. ceranthor 18:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He quickly established a reputation as a criminal law barrister, particularly for the defendants, and in February 1793 was made a King's Counsel by HM Government to prosecute treason and felony cases. - I think this would flow better at the end as... cases of treason and felonies ... or at least sound cooler ;)
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I in turn changed that, make sure it didn't change the meaning please.
- I have to say I prefer my version, rather than "treason and felonies" which is "singular and plural"; a bit awkward. Ironholds (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I in turn changed that, make sure it didn't change the meaning please.
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Studying here Garrow "knew the English language well; had a moderate acquaintance with the Latin and, as an accomplishment, added a considerable proficiency in French".[4] - studying there
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No mention of the libel case of John and Leigh Hunt. In all fairness, it isn't mentioned in the Hunt article, either, and most definitely should be discussed there. But one source I found says that the Hunt case brought Garrow notoriety. • Ling.Nut 04:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added that information which I have; could you provide the notoriety source? The Braby book is short on detail of the case. Ironholds (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from J Milburn
I will have a read through and see what I can find. If I seem over-critical, rest assured that it's because I hate you.
- "a famine from 1695 to 1699 and a cattle disease the following year" We got articles on either of these?
- It doesn't look like it, I'm afraid. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Geography, Mathematics" Why are they capitalised?
- moved down a notch. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "articled" is hardly a common term. Link?
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we have a caption on the infobox image? How old is he there?
- Done.
- "with assaulting John Troughton, putting him in fear of his life, and stealing his hat." Well, that cracked me up.
- "By 1799, a book recorded that his business at the Court of King's Bench "is exceeded by none but Mr. Erskine's", and that "he has long monopolized the chief business on the home circuit... No man is heard with more attention by the court, no man gains more upon a jury, or better pleases a common auditor".[19]" Could this be rephrased? The tenses are odd, and I'm not even certain what it means.
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Briton described" What is The Briton, precisely?
- A newspaper; no article, unfortunately. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Morning Chronicle" Again?
- Linked. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "the Official Opposition, not HM Government." Who were these people, precisely?
- Linked. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "which Garrow had long been opposed to" to which Garrow had long been oppose
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "is considered one of his best." By whom, on what grounds? That sort of phrase can't really stand in an FA...
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Thanks to Garrow's political connections, he was made first Solicitor General and then Attorney General for the Prince of Wales in 1806 and 1807; he was recommended by Erskine, who said in a letter to the Prince that "he knows more of the real justice and policy of everything connected with the criminal law than any man I am acquainted with".[27]" Seems a bit shortt to be its own paragraph
- Expanded somewhat. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The press had been speculating that Garrow, a Whig, would enter Parliament since 1789" Perhaps "Since 1789, the press had been speculating that Garrow, a Whig, would enter Parliament"
- "however he was first returned in 1805 for Gatton." Sorry, what does this mean?
- Returned is the technical term for being elected to Parliament. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "impeachment" link?
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "He did not enjoy his time in Parliament," What are we basing this on? Letters? Can we have a quote?
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Attorney General" Link?
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "He eventually resigned as Attorney General and as a Member of Parliament in 1817, when he was appointed one of the Barons of the Exchequer.[34]" Refer to him by name- you just mentioned Garrow
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ""to appoint a gentleman holding a lucrative office at the sole pleasure of the Crown to a high judicial situation, was extremely inconsistent with that independence of the judicial character which it was so important to preserve inviolate"." Is this a quote from Romilly, or a(n) historian?
- Romilly, directly. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "He regularly amazed both barristers and defendants with his knowledge of the intricacies of crime." Examples? Again, this is a rather unsupported statement.
- The best I can do is "Braby claims"; no example is given. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The trust contains his entire estate, with the trustees being Leonard Smith, a merchant, Edward Lowth Badeley of Paper Buildings, Inner Temple and William Nanson Lettsom of Gray's Inn.[42]" Is this meant to be present tense?
- Hah, woops! Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Lemmings notes Garrow as not only a formidable advocate but "[the] first lawyer to establish a reputation as a defence barrister".[48]" Who? This chap hasn't been mentioned before
- See the biblio. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "further extended the analysis of Garrow's work with "The Bar and the Old Bailey: 1750-1850", published in 2003." What journal was that published in?
- It's a book
- "Garrow's work was cited as recently" cited in court, presumably?
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Garrow's work was cited as recently as 1982, when the Supreme Court of Canada quoted a passage from The Trial of William Davidson and Richard Tidd for High Treason, where Garrow instructed the jury as to how to interpret testimony, in Vetrovec v The Queen in 1982, and 2006, when the Irish Court of Criminal Appeal quoted the same work in their review of the 1982 conviction of Brian Meehan for the murder of Veronica Guerin.[50]" Quite a long and confusing sentence.
- Hopefully I've fixed it. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "It is indisputable that he had" Refer to him by name?
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "forced to defend himself." Or herself? Or not?
- Normally I use the masculine tense, with the convention that unless otherwise mentioned, it refers to both genders. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "He was crucial in insisting on the autonomy of lawyers when inducting evidence, in one case openly arguing with the trial judge to insist that the advocates have independence in submitting it." This is too technical for me, but sounds interesting. Could it be rephrased or include some links?
- Hmn. I've linked evidence to the appropriate article; I don't really know how to reword it. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Thomas Hague had suggested" Odd phrase.
- "has", I think. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An extremely interesting article. Well researched, seems to cover the ground. Very well written, and the topic is fascinating. J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the above changes and IRC discussion with Ironholds, I am now willing to support this. J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning Support. I dunno how much longer this FAC will run. If it comes to closing time, please color me "Weak Support". I think the "Weak" can be rectified with only a few changes, only two of which I would absolutely require. First, I think a sentence (or at most two, but probably not even that) in the lede that mentions the details of his impact is called for, since these are supporting points of a major thesis of the article. That's the change I require, and really, it shouldn't take more than 5 or at most 10 minutes to make a nice one. Second, please change "irregular relationship" to something like "That one contemporary described as 'irregular'" and cite the quote.. I gave it somewhere above. Another minute or two, tops. Third... I don't absolutely require this, but it would be oh so wonderful.. where is the other landsman article? Please find it if you have time: THE RISE OF THE CONTENTIOUS SPIRIT: ADVERSARY PROCEDURE IN EIGHTEENTH CENTURY ENGLAND. March, 1990 75 Cornell L. Rev. 497 • Ling.Nut 06:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Made the first change, I think; I'll try and find the second journal article. Ironholds (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - An interesting article. I must admit it might be recentism, but I do think we could do with another sentence or two on Garrow's Law? It is a novel idea to have a drama based in 18th century court drama and I believe it has been criticised for hitorical inacuracies/dumbing down. I'd also change the sentence about him going into parliament to be '...would enter Parliament as a whig' rather than '...,a whig, would enter Parliament'. It could do with some more pictures of the subject as well. You cannot tell me there are no satirical cartoons of Mr Garrow's work considering the period? I'd also, obviously, prefer the less opaque method of referencing of Name, Title, Publishing Info, Page rather than the simple Name Date format, though I am aware this is more usual in legal history etc. However, these are picky improvement one could make to an already good article. As it stands it is a worthy FAC, though a few niggling improvements could occur. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Read this article a few days ago, and was impressed then. The improvements definitely suggest this meets the featured article criteria. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I was the GA reviewer for this article, it was a pleasure to read at that time and clearly met those requirements and i suggested that it could without much difficulty make its way here, with the improvements already made I think its certainly a worthy FA Ajbpearce (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Late to the party, I know, but a few comments. Firstly, when Ironholds asked me if I could suggest a law-related article he could improve, and I suggested Garrow, I never thought how excellent the result would be. Given Ironhold's skill as a writer, though, I should not have doubted the outcome. A few quibblettes:
- In the body of the article, Southouse recommends that Garrow becomes a barrister or solicitor, and then he becomes Crompton' pupil. In the lead, Crompton recommends to his pupil that he becomes a barrister or solicitor. I assume that the first version is correct, and the lead is slightly tangled?
- "...many people in Aberdeenshire migrated south. As such, Garrow's father David was born at a farm called Knockside" etc. I'm slightly puzzled by what the "As such" adds here, when David Garrow is still born in Aberdeenshire.
- In the discussion of his first trial, "and being two of the most prestigious criminal barristers of the day" seems odd - is a word missing?
- I'm not convinced that Law Officers of the Crown is a good link when mentioning Garrow's appointment as S-G then A-G to the Prince of Wales, since (if I understand things correctly) he wasn't being appointed to a Crown position in the sense of a governmental appointment, but to a private (though prestigious) post in the Prince's affairs. Attorney-General of the Duchy of Cornwall might work, though it isn't great.
- In the same sentence, is there a better link for "Prince of Wales" than, err, "Prince of Wales", i.e. the individual in question rather than the title?
- In Political career, "appointed to serve the interests of his patron" - out of interest, who was his patron?
- Otherwise, a very interesting read, and an article that will surely be even more widely read if and when series 2 of "Garrow's Law" is produced! BencherliteTalk 18:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments, Bencherlite; I've fixed all the points. No need to be self-deprecating; from the list of Cornwall AGs, it appears that was his formal title! Nice catch :). Ironholds (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: after a bit of tidying up, the images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Karanacs 18:46, 12 January 2010 [32].
- Nominator(s): Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it has achieved Good Article Status, it is well-sourced, stable, and I believe it is ready for the next step. It recently went through Peer Review and all suggestions there have been implemented. Thanks for your time. Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Technical check No dabs, no dead links, but alt text is either missing, inadequate, or includes information that is not describing the image such as the name of the zoo. Remember the point of alt text is just to describe what is shown in the image, not to add non-visible details. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that ALT Text thing has been kicking my butt for a few days. I think I have it figured out, small pics, no space after the equal sign, let me know how I can improve them! Thanks again for taking the time to review!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (earlier comments moved to talk) Sorry for the long delay in coming back here - I haven't had Internet access for a while. The article is much better now, and you can consider everything above here as resolved, but I still have a couple of comments:
- Why not add a little about scalation counts in the article? It's probably not the most exciting information, but it's been the subject of scientific studies, so why not say how many scales there are and perhaps how that differs from the most closely related other Cyclura species?
- I'll look into this, although it may be out of scope here and beter in the Cyclura article.
- Perhaps true, but not so for the counts in C. nubila itself.
- I'll definitely look into adding this, would be better if I could draw it like it is in the Burton paper cited and linked in the article (ref #10)don't want to make it ABAADA, though.
- ABAADA?
- As Boring As A Dog's Ass. :)
- ABAADA?
- I'll definitely look into adding this, would be better if I could draw it like it is in the Burton paper cited and linked in the article (ref #10)don't want to make it ABAADA, though.
- Perhaps true, but not so for the counts in C. nubila itself.
- I have to agree with Fifelfoo below that it'd be better to source the etymology of Cyclura to something better than a website. For mammals, there is a giant work by someone who compiled all genus names and etymologies back in 1904; perhaps someone similar exists for reptiles?
- Nope. Nothing that I've been able to find explains the Greek roots of Cyclura as well, believe it or not. I'll trust a Franciscan Biologist on a Latin/Greek translation over most modern sources anyway. My background in Latin and Greek is the same and I'll go toe to toe with any Doctor with a background in the Sciences any day on a Latin translation. :)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like you are right; Google Books and the Biodiversity Heritage Library didn't bring me anything. I did find the original description of Cyclura, which talks about a cylindrical tail in C. teres but does not explicitly say that is where the name comes from. Ucucha 20:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha 20:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe add that as an additional source?
- Perhaps. But what you'd be citing it for is the etymology, and Harlan doesn't give an etymology. By the way, I also found the original description of Cyclura nubila [33], which isn't very etymologically useful either. I added it as a ref to correct the original name. Ucucha 09:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, Great Find! Thanks--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 09:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I found a reliable source to replace the good Father Sanchez: http://books.google.nl/books?id=G25PwlJyyk4C&lpg=PA80&ots=NiqUuOn5gc&dq=Cyclura%20oura&pg=PA80#v=onepage&q=Cyclura%20oura&f=false. Ucucha 08:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, Great Find! Thanks--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 09:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps. But what you'd be citing it for is the etymology, and Harlan doesn't give an etymology. By the way, I also found the original description of Cyclura nubila [33], which isn't very etymologically useful either. I added it as a ref to correct the original name. Ucucha 09:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe add that as an additional source?
- Thanks for taking the time to come back and respond.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline: Sourcing: Father Sanchez' website is not a High quality reliable source, or reliable source as it hasn't undergone peer review and is being used to support Taxonomy.
- Actually, all that Father Sanchez source is supporting is a Greek to English translation, thanks for taking the time to read it.
Also high quality reliable source issue: using the Caymanian Compass to support sexual dimorphism?
- It's one of three sources, some reviewers like to see things on the interwebs, I prefer books, thanks again for your time.
- Comments: Dates in citations need to be brought to consistency. At the moment Month DD, YYYY and DD Month YYYY are both present. I fixed Malone, C.L. (2000). as it hasn't been published for the purposes of a citation system (its certainly a HQRS and is published in the Wikipedia sense of "made available for consultation and issued by a responsible issuer") it needs to use Roman rather than Italic text for the title. Some sources have locations for their publisher, others don't, and you're not applying obviousness of locations either: locations for all or none. "(in English). SF Gate" and again for Deseret News? Some other fiddle spacing issues such as, "Retrieved December 04,2009." Fifelfoo (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll look into all this, thanks for fixing the thesis format, for me, dates appear to be consistent.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit to add, I ended up having to do this over, so thanks for not fixing the format.
Support wrt criterion 1a. Oppose- sadly. An enjoyable article about a charming lizard but the prose needs more work. It suffers mainly from redundancy, repetition and a little verbosity. I have taken the liberty of editing the Lead to give you a better understanding of what I mean.[34] I think a good copy editor could fix these issues in an hour or so, and enjoy doing it. Graham Colm Talk 17:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been greatly improved over these past few days. Graham Colm Talk 18:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Graham, I'll keep plugging away at it, sometimes when I write these reptile pieces up I put on my scientist hat and geek out a bit, printing it and reading it aloud is what made me go "ooooh that's bad!"--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to support. Graham Colm Talk 22:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Graham, I'll keep plugging away at it, sometimes when I write these reptile pieces up I put on my scientist hat and geek out a bit, printing it and reading it aloud is what made me go "ooooh that's bad!"--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review All the images have appropriate licenses and sources where needed. It is always reassuring to see the metadata (although one image, having been post-processed, has lost this). Graham Colm Talk 22:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just some stuff I think could be fixed:
- "As they are not capable of creating urine more concentrated than their bodily fluids, they excrete nitrogenous wastes as uric acid salts through a salt gland in the same manner as birds. As a result, they have developed this lateral nasal gland to supplement renal salt secretion by expelling excess potassium and sodium chloride." This seems a bit clunky to me. I think they could be combined, but I'm not I understand what is being said well enough to do it myself.
- Basically, they do not produce liquid urine, but they do produce uric acid. In most reptiles (think snakes and varanids) this is expelled as urates with their feces. They consume a lot of plant matter so they blow salt and potassium out of their nose. You see this exaggerated if you watch documentaries on Marine iguanas, or if you've ever seen white specks on the inside glass of a terrarium with iguanas in it. I'll try to break it down into two sentences.
- This is a difficult fact to get across without going into too much technical detail. How about, "Unlike mammals, reptile kidneys cannot concentrate urine to save on water intake. Instead they excrete toxic nitrogenous wastes as solid uric acid in their cloaca, and they excrete other excess salt ions through their salt glands." Graham Colm Talk 19:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Graham, how about: "Unlike mammals, reptile kidneys cannot concentrate urine to save on water intake. Instead they excrete toxic nitrogenous wastes as solid uric acid through their cloaca. In the case of the Cuban iguana which consumes large amounts of vegetation high in phosphorous, these excess salt ions are excreted through their salt glands."--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Better, I think. :-) Graham Colm Talk 19:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Graham, how about: "Unlike mammals, reptile kidneys cannot concentrate urine to save on water intake. Instead they excrete toxic nitrogenous wastes as solid uric acid through their cloaca. In the case of the Cuban iguana which consumes large amounts of vegetation high in phosphorous, these excess salt ions are excreted through their salt glands."--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a difficult fact to get across without going into too much technical detail. How about, "Unlike mammals, reptile kidneys cannot concentrate urine to save on water intake. Instead they excrete toxic nitrogenous wastes as solid uric acid in their cloaca, and they excrete other excess salt ions through their salt glands." Graham Colm Talk 19:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the lead, it suggests that iguanas lay their eggs in close proximity to Cuban crocodiles, but in the Mating section it seems that they lay in the abandoned mounds of the crocodiles and not near the crocodiles themselves.
- I'll clear this up. Thanks for reading/giving feedback!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I think I got it, let me know. Thanks again!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that I feel that I can support. I've given it a copyedit, which I encourage you to look over to make sure I didn't alter the facts. bibliomaniac15 18:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have all the pictures been verified that they show the correct species? There are some wikipedia iguana articles with the wrong species as an image in the article. Not my information, a friend is an iguanologist, or whatever, and tells me this. --69.226.100.7 (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes sir, and yes...I've spent the past three years correcting misidentified species on here, mostly its the Ctenosaura types that get called "Green iguana" by tourists in Mexico, but there was a rather humorous one involving a Chuckwalla misidentified as a Beaded lizard. All pics are of the type found on Cuba, the Isla Mayagues population is much redder.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. --69.226.100.7 (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with CoI I did the GA for this. Having reviewed again today, it has now been improved to FA level Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Sasata.
Lead
- link Cyclura; habitat loss; conservation; captive breeding (no hyphen required)
Taxonomy
- how about a citation to the protologue? Maybe it's available somewhere on the net?
- "Its specific name nubila..." specific is currently linked to species. How about linking instead to specific name?
- Done.
- link subspecies
- Done.
- "This phylogeny was revised after later mitochondrial DNA analysis..." I think maybe the word classification would be more appropriate than phylogeny here
- Done
- "Cuban iguanas in excess of 1.6 meters (5.2 ft) when measured from the snout to the tip of the tail have been recorded..." Since the previous sentence clearly identifies the subject as Cuban iguanas, how about tightening thusly: "Individuals with lengths in excess of 1.6 meters (5.2 ft) (measured from the snout to the tip of the tail) have been recorded at the wildlife sanctuary within the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base..." Also, would any meaning be lost by changing "within" to "in"?
- Done and I think so, "in" does not sound right to me whenthinking of GITMO.."inside"?
- "In both sexes, limbs are black with pale brown oval spots." I don't really see this blackness in the images provided. At best, the specimen pictured in the Conservation section has gray limbs. Am I missing something?
- Actually, it's correct, hard to see in these images see here:[35],
- "...and a row of spines running down their back..." How long are these spines? Are they sharp?
- The length is proportional to the age of the animal, hatchlings are hard to see, juveniles look like a row of bumps a male with an 18" body length has 1/4" spines, whereas a full-grown adult may be an inch or longer. They are pointed, but not sharp.
- wlink mottling; color vision; maybe wikt transverse
- done
- "By seeking out locations with more ultraviolet sunlight to bask in, the Cuban iguana optimizes vitamin D production." I'd be interested to know if any sources mention this as a possible adaptation to a vit. D deficient diet?
- Not that I've seen, although there is a well-documented case of a herpetoculturist who keeps Chuckwallas and provides them with no sunlight or artificial UV light, instead he feeds his animals excessive doses of liquid Vitamin D. Sauromalus and Cyclura have similar lighting requirements in this regard.
- "Cuban iguanas have a white photosensory organ on the top of their heads called the parietal eye." I can't see any such eye in the images... could you describe this eye some more?
It is very difficult to see, here is a picture of one on the top of an Anole's head:[36]I wikilinked to the article to go into greater detail that I felt was beyond the scope of this article.
- numbers or text: "95%" vs. "fifty percent" later
- Done
- link nematode;
- Done
- "Instead reptiles excrete toxic nitrogenous wastes..." Comma after Instead, for a pause?
- Done
- anything more about their behaviour? Are they territorial? Do they fight? Do they defend themselves by biting or whipping their tails? Do they hang out in groups? Can they climb trees? How fast can they run?
- I can include some more of this they're not as territorial as other Cyclura, most combat is "ritual", although I have a female that latches on to the throat of every prospective male I've introduced her to and tries to kill him. They lash and hiss, in 30 years I've only been bitten by one who was an overaggressive eater who mistook my hand for food as I was feeding him. I actually go into this more in the mating section. They can climb trees, but they are not arboreal, they are a heavy-bodied lizard more suited to the ground. They are not as fast as Ctenosaura similis, but they're not exactly slow and lumbering, either.
- link sexual maturity; clutch;
- How big are the eggs? What color are they? What percentage typically survive? When do they crocodile eggs hatch?
- 3 inches or so, off-white to tan, in captivity 95%...I could not say what it is in the wild, crocs hatch in July, right before the iguanas lay their eggs.
- the second sentence in the Distribution section sticks out somewhat, as it's more about behavior; same with the head-bobbing a bit later
- I'll take a look.
- "As of the year 2000, there has been talk of removing or relocating this population..." who is talking?
- US Government, Dept of Interior, although, I have not heard much on this the past year or so.
- "The rapid change in display structure between the colony of animals on Isla Magueyes and those on Cuba illustrated the potential of small founding population size as a catalyst to evolution with regard to communication or display." Sentence structure seems awkward, making it difficult to clearly understand what this means with a single readthrough. Next sentence also needs tweaking.
Ok it's getting late, must sleep. Will continue review tomorrow. Sasata (talk) 09:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I got most of these.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Sasata - continued
- the last paragraph of mating and behavior has four sentences, all of which are cited to the same source; seems unnecessary, as a single citation at the end of the paragraph implies that all of the contents of the paragraph are cited to that source
- Understood, but it doesn't keep certain people from filling an article with [citation needed] tags everyt ime they see a period not followed by a number.
- Section "Distribution" should really be "Distribution and habitat", don'tcha think?
- Good call!
- still think the past paragraph on head-bobbing should be moved up a section into "Mating and behavior"
- I would tend to agree if it was strictly about head-bobbbing, but in this instance it has more to do with communication based on a evolution of an isolated population in a new location than just animal courtship.
- "The Cuban iguana is well established" last two words should be hyphenated, no? Also, I don;t think this needs to be cited as the following sentence cites to the same source (like the above example)
- Fixed
- link breeding program; pet trade; vulnerable
- "In a round-about way, the Cuban iguana's status as an endangered species made its way..." I thought it was "vulnerable" as few sentences ago?
- It is, but it is protected under the Endangered Species Act, except in Puerto Rico.
- "According to Peter Honigsberg, a professor of law at the University of San Francisco: Wilner unsuccessfully made two arguments before the Court to hear his case; in his third argument he changed gears by mentioning US law and the Cuban iguana." I'd suggest changing the colon to a comma, and the semicolon to a period. Also, the phrase "changing gears" seems vernacular and might be worthwhile rephrasing. (p.s. I feel a bit dorky criticizing prose after Tony below has okayed it... I just call 'em like I sees 'em; feel free to ignore the suggestions)
- I fixed it.
- "According to Honigsberg, the Supreme Court to agree to hear the case." not a sentence
- it was until someone decided to have intercourse with it, without even having the common courtesy to oppose it here.
- first paragraph of "Decline" has triple-redundant citations
- I'll remove such cites, then if it's a point of contention...and point them here when they start sprinkling [citation needed] throughout.
- link habitat destruction; introduced
- fixed
- "...depicting a Cuban iguana on the head side of the coin in an attempt to raise awareness for this animal." "for" or "of"? Not sure myself...
Thanks again! I'll look into the redundant links and ref formatting now--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC) References: MOS fiddling required[reply]
- current ref #8 should go in a thesis template
- fixed
- ref #9 needs italics for genus name, also, the actual journal title is "Journal of Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution"
- fixed
- Ref #15 has different author name format; needs publisher location; should be p. instead of pp.
- fixed
- I don't have locations for every source, someone on here told me to get rid of the locations for consistency, which is it?
- Consistency is best; it shouldn't be too difficult to find publisher locations with an internet search. Sasata (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The second author in Ref #17 has a different format; needs page #'s
- fixed
- Refs 18,19, 27 needs italics for Latin names
- fixed
- Is ref 21 foreign language? Should be specified. Also p., not pp.
- It's in English and Spanish
- Refs 28, 32 pp. -> p.; both need publisher location (as well as #33)
- Got it all except for the publisher's location, in hindsight I will go back and add this, the reviewer who said, "None or all" apparently gave me another piece of bad advice.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Sasata - continued, part 2 Sasata (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a literature review and it seems to me like there's been quite a few interesting or relevant studies published that aren't used as sources in the article. Any comment on why these articles weren't used? Based on a quick reading of the abstracts, it seems that some of them have some interesting information that should be at least mentioned in the article.
- Title: Natural history and morphometry of the Cuban iguana (Cyclura nubila Gray, 1831) in Cayo Siju, Cuba
- Author(s): Beovides-Casas, K.; Mancina, C. A.
- Source: Animal Biodiversity and Conservation Volume: 29 Issue: 1 Pages: 1-8 Published: 2006
- Don't believe I've ever seen this one before.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Title: Cannibalism in an introduced population of Cyclura nubila nubila on Isla Magueyes, Puerto Rico.
- Author(s): Perez-Buitrago, Nestor F.; Alvarez, Alberto O.; Garcia, Miguel A.
- Source: Iguana Volume: 13 Issue: 3 Pages: 206-208 Published: September 2006
- A big lizard ate a baby lizard? I have this one in print and didn't think its contents merited inclusion.
- Title: Cylura nubila on Isla Magueyes, Puerto Rico
- Author(s): Garcia, Miguel
- Source: Iguana Volume: 13 Issue: 2 Pages: 126 Published: JUN 2006
- Nothing in here that isn't already written about elsewhere in the article.
- Title: Conserving the remarkable reptiles of Guantanamo Bay
- Author(s): Alberts, Allison C.
- Source: Iguana Volume: 13 Issue: 1 Pages: 8-15 Published: MAR 2006
- Nothing in here that isn't already written about elsewhere in the article.
- Title: Characterization of 20 microsatellite marker loci in the west Indian rock iguana (Cyclura nubila)
- Author(s): An, JH; Sommer, JA; Shore, GD, et al.
- Source: CONSERVATION GENETICS Volume: 5 Issue: 1 Pages: 121-125 Published: 2004
- Nothing here that would really add to what has been written. I've read it and thought it was a bit out of scope.
- Title: Revision to species of Cyclura nubila lewisi, the Grand Cayman Blue Iguana
- Author(s): Burton, FJ
- Source: CARIBBEAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE Volume: 40 Issue: 2 Pages: 198-203 Published: 2004
- I thought this was linked, I used it in the Blue iguana piece, it's more about that species than this one.
- Title: Cyclura nubila lewisi (Grand Cayman Blue Rock Iguana).
- Author(s): Burton, Frederic J.
- Source: Herpetological Review Volume: 35 Issue: 4 Pages: 388-389 Published: December 2004
- Different species, see above.
- Title: The effect of anthropogenic habitat usage on the social behaviour of a vulnerable species, Cyclura nubila
- Author(s): Lacy, KE; Martins, EP
- Source: ANIMAL CONSERVATION Volume: 6 Pages: 3-9 Part: 1 Published: FEB 2003
- I know the authors, not sure if I've seen this one before.
- Title: Lacertilia: Cyclura nubila nubila (Cuban iguana). Carrion feeding
- Author(s): Gerber, Glenn P.; Grant, Tandora D.; Alberts, Allison C., et al.
- Source: Herpetological Review Volume: 33 Issue: 2 Pages: 133-134 Published: June, 2002
- Nothing in here that isn't already written about elsewhere in the article.
- Title: Temporary alteration of local social structure in a threatened population of Cuban iguanas (Cyclura nubila)
- Author(s): Alberts, AC; Lemm, JM; Perry, AM, et al.
- Source: BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY AND SOCIOBIOLOGY Volume: 51 Issue: 4 Pages: 324-335 Published: 2002
- Don't think I've seen this before..I know Jeff and Allison and usually read everything they publish.
- Title: The biology and breeding of the Cuban ground iguana (Cyclura nubila) in captivity.
- Author(s): Rehak, Ivan; Velensky, Petr
- Source: Gazella Volume: 28 Pages: 129-208 Published: 1 January 2001
- Never heard of this publication. Although I do know Ivan Rehak.
- Title: The need for pre-release health screening in animal translocations: a case study of the Cuban iguana (Cyclura nubila)
- Author(s): Alberts, AC; Oliva, ML; Worley, MB, et al.
- Source: ANIMAL CONSERVATION Volume: 1 Issue: 3 Pages: 165-172 Published: 1998
- good one, but goes more into parasite counts. I thought it was too out of scope.
- Title: Effects of incubation temperature and water potential on growth and thermoregulatory behavior of hatchling Cuban rock iguanas (Cyclura nubila)
- Author(s): Alberts, AC; Perry, AM; Lemm, JM, et al.
- Source: COPEIA Issue: 4 Pages: 766-776 Published: DEC 9 1997
- A very good one, but its more concerned with captive husbandry and is out of scope for this piece.
- Title: Use of statistical models based on radiographic measurements to predict oviposition date and clutch size in rock iguanas (Cyclura nubila)
- Author(s): Alberts, AC
- Source: ZOO BIOLOGY Volume: 14 Issue: 6 Pages: 543-553 Published: 1995
- This is also a very good article, especially for myself as a keeper and breeder, but this may go a little in depth for a wiki article. Although I'm loathe to do it, would you reccomend me adding a further reading section and incorporating some of these?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For fun, consider cleaning up (i.e. removing) empty citation template parameters. Also, accessdate parameters are not required if no external web site was accessed
- will do, thanks!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, readable article that will make a fine addition to the FA list. Personally, I like the new further reading section with additional high-quality sources of detailed information about the topic. It makes it a better resource and a springboard for students researching the topic. Is it overkill for a general-readership article? Maybe, but its conveniently at the end, so those who aren't interested can ignore it. Sasata (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks!
Support: mostly well written. Well done.
- "Unlike in most iguanids, females guard their nest sites"—First two words ungrammatical.
- fixed
- "Although the wild population is in decline because of predation by feral animals and habitat loss caused by human agricultural development, their numbers are increasing as a result of captive-breeding and other conservation programs." Does "their" refer to "feral animals"? It's the only preceding plural.
- refers to iguanas, I changed this
- "has served as"—"has been". I caught myself writing that very phrase a few weeks ago.
- I went with "has been" leaning toward "has been used as"
- "aforementioned"? This is pretty awkward. Is a back-reference necessary?
- fixed
- Why is "fingerprint" linked? Why is "scavenging" linked? And "prehistoric"? These are all common words with no particular technical dimension here.
- I think someone was trying to help me out, although I did link fingerprint
- "However" is better at the start of a clause.
- fixed
- "Special" begs too many answers. I'd just remove it.
- removed
- "... the animals are treated well and protected by U.S. forces stationed at the base. An unusual incident occurred when a detainee in the prison assaulted a guard with a bloody tail torn from a Cuban iguana in May 2005." I don't quite see this last sentence as pertinent to the topic. It's too easy to interpret it as "US military—good. Islamic terrorist prisoners—bad." Why tempt providence with such a sensitive issue?
- I thought it was an interesting anecdote, although the original version I heard from a Marine was the guy hit the guard with the whole iguana, the paper reported it as the tail. Not going so much for a good guy vs bad guy angle. Original version I simply had "treated well and protected by residents of the base", either at peer-review or GAN they asked me to clarify. It does set up the human rights question made by the lawyer as "Iguanas treated better than people"
- U.S. then US. Personally, I much prefer the undotted version, but it must be consistent.
- fixed
- "By way of comparison"—two redundant words?
- fixed
- The difference of 20% was in what respect?
- number of head bobs and duration of head bobs, pauses, etc. Here are two distinct species, communicating in a very similar manner...maybe as close as Middle English and Modern English. Whereas the same species moved to another island and isolated is speaking a totally different language. It's hard to write it without making it sound as boring as a dog's ass.
- Perhaps "was by only six".
- fixed
- Unsure it needs "in captivity".
- I removed it
- "Unlike on"—there it is again. I think "unlike" can't be followed by a preposition. "In contrast to"? Tony (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, thanks Tony! --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has Ucuchua been asked to revist this FAC? Karanacs (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've asked him at least twice, the last time was on 12/31 and it's still on his talk page.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Karanacs 18:46, 12 January 2010 [37].
- Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 14:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the articles from the set Wikipedia:Featured_topic_candidates/The Invincibles/archive1. This match was most infamous for the controversial omission of the leading England batsman Len Hutton. Also, despite one day's play being washed out and rain being prevalent, it broke a record for the most spectators at a Test match in England, showing how popular the 1948 Australians were YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 14:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - 2c is good, handful of fixits here Fifelfoo (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on refs' In notes but not refs: Harte and Whimpress, Perry (2002) • Ling.Nut 13:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- done the oversights mentioned by Lingnut and fifelfoo YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 14:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This sentence is currently at the end of Background: "Yardley won the toss and elected to bat." I think this should be in the day one summary, as it is in the articles on the Fourth and Fifth Tests.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 13:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now for an extended review from me, not just a one-off comment. Most of it looks good, as I would expect. I only found a handful or so of issues that jumped out at me while reading the article:
Day One: "who compared him to Harold Larwood, a 1930s paceman targeted batsmen with Bodyline." Missing "who" in this sentence.Day Two: "with on foot on the edge of the cut strip and he was unable to evade the ball." Second word is a typo.Day Three: "and Emmett edged it to wicket-keeper Tallon, who took it in his right hand with taking a dive." Is "with taking a dive" a cricket phrase? If not, it doesn't sound that grammatical. Should it be "while taking a dive"? (can you tell I'm unfamiliar with cricket?)"There position was aided by the Australian fielders". "There" → "Their"."and was again dropped by Hassett. Hassett." Try to adjust so that repetition of the name isn't there.Aftermath: "in order to fulfil Bradman's aim of going through the tour undefeated." Is "fulfil" a typo? (not sure if it's some Australian varient of fulfill)Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done all except the last. Wiktionary says one l is correct for BrE YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 13:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now for an extended review from me, not just a one-off comment. Most of it looks good, as I would expect. I only found a handful or so of issues that jumped out at me while reading the article:
- Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 13:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) Support – Another excellent cricket article from YM, which is of similar quality to the articles on 1948 Ashes matches that are already featured. Prose looks fine after the fixes above, and the sourcing is top-notch, as one would expect from YM. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I had to run both dash and date scripts on the article. Shouldn't have to be done by a reviewer. Australian date formats required.
- thanks for the date thing. I usually just prefer hardcode as being easier to work with because some text editors don't tell the diff between dashes n/m and hyphen and kill it off when I put it in there.... YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 14:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The names of anglophone countries (there are seven, I guess) are not linked unless there's a really good reason to do so. Many readers won't get it, that the opening links are to cricket teams. You have to be in the know to realise that they're called, loosely, by their country name. I don't suppose that they could be piped to "the Australia and England national cricket teams"? Generally skilfully linked.
- I avoided using national as ENG represents two nations and tweaked it around YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 14:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Test(s)" when generic (not part of a title) should be "test(s)".
- Well, per WP:CRIC Tests have been capped everywhere adn in all prior FAs, including some you already reviewed YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 14:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely. It's Test cricket. I would say it's an important cap, as test cricket sounds like it's a warm-up or a practice match, an unfortunate ambiguity. --Dweller (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, per WP:CRIC Tests have been capped everywhere adn in all prior FAs, including some you already reviewed YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 14:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "so Australia thus"—two causal words? "and thus Australia".
- done thanks YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 14:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- after ... after, plus another after a few seconds later. There's a lot of need for chronological sequence items, so have you two or three that can be rotated, or standard methods for rewording some instances? "at ... at". Watch those reps throughout. Where is my script for flagging close reps? Who will write it?
- Mixed it up YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 14:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "retained The Ashes"—you sure it normally has a T mid-sentence? Looks odd. Tony (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally yes, but the article is at "The Ashes" so... YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 14:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur. The best cricket RS do usually capitalise the t. I suppose it's a reflection of the superstitious awe in which they are held by English and Australian cricket fans; and a lot of those elsewhere. --Dweller (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally yes, but the article is at "The Ashes" so... YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 14:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images all free and appropriately labeled, a tad dull, maybe add File:Ashes_Urn.jpg to the opening paragraph, but nothing that would hinder FA candidacy Fasach Nua (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, comprehensive and complies with MOS.--Grahame (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- prose, detail, sourcing, and style all look good. A few comments but nothing serious enough to affect support:
- Prefer to see an image in the lead para.
- Pedantry, but set a new record is redundant. If you set a record, it's new by its nature. I know everyone uses "new record" but that doesn't make it correct.
- Likewise, it'd be nice to fight common but incorrect usage of "England" and "Australia" (as in the cricket teams) taking "their" as the possessive instead of "its" - you could fix and keep everyone happy by changing "England" and "Australia" to "the English" and "the Australians". I realise of course that this usage is probably in all similar articles and therefore a lost cause but still... ;-)
Anyway, well played, suh! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:20, 10 January 2010 [38].
- Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A notorious impostor who leapt into a canal to kill herself, ran around naked on a Park Avenue roof, and spent time in an asylum, believed by some to be Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia (also a featured article). DrKiernan (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I supported at the last FAC - doing so again. :) This is such an interesting article. If you want a cool story to tell friends, read this FAC! ('Cuz that is why we read FACs.) Awadewit (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Real life commitments got in the way of my adding my support the last time. This is a well-written and engaging article and such a fascinating story. Graham Colm Talk 23:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to you both. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment section one daldorf asylum it is stated that she was "admitted to the Elisabeth Hospital in Lützowstrasse." Now my german might be a little rusty but strasse means "street" as far as I am aware. Now that would imply it is a street and that the hospital is "on" lutzowstrasse. Can anyone verify the statement or correct me? Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 01:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed. DrKiernan (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we link to "émigré Captain"? it doesn't seem like a standard term. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 01:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've linked "Russian émigré" to White émigré in the hope that the link addresses this. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do find the change in name in reference to anna anderson half way through the article somewhat confusing. I do think that we should use a standard name throughout the article. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 01:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like the idea of using "Anderson" throughout because it pre-empts the part where she becomes Anderson, weakens her introduction as an unknown, and I prefer the biography to be in chronological order. Perhaps we should consider using "Anna" instead of "Tschaikovsky" and "Anderson", since the first name is common to both identities? DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support:
Cecilie signed a declaration that Tschaikovsky was Anastasia, but her family implied she was suffering from dementia.Might "her" and "she" not be confusingly referring to Cecilie or Tschaikovsky? Maybe this can be reworked to be clearer?
- Amended. DrKiernan (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "... a tuberculous infection of her arm ..."
- Pardon my medical ignorance, what is "a tuberculous infection"?
- Something like Tuberculous cellulitis or Tuberculous gumma, I presume. DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a way to either confirm which is it, or to link it to a general condition to help readers, such as me, who might be unfamiliar with what sort of medical condition it is? Jappalang (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I can't tell what the illness was in modern terms. The sources just say a tuberculous/tubercular infection complicated by Staphyloccal infection. DrKiernan (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, it cannot be helped then, but I leave this unstruck in hopes that some other editor can offer suggestions here. Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "... Melnik coached Tschaikovsky with details of life in the imperial family."
- Source?
- The two sources supporting this clause are given earlier in the sentence: Godl, John (August 1998), "Anastasia: The Unmasking of Anna Anderson", The European Royal History Journal (VI), Oakland: Arturo Beeche: 3–8 and and Gilliard, Pierre (1929) La Fausse Anastasie quoted by von Nidda in his commentary on I, Anastasia, p. 198. DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps those two sources (at the ends of the preceding clauses) should be shifted to the end of the sentence instead? I am not too hard on this though. Jappalang (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"She became apathetic and depressed, was declared insane on 19 September 1916, spent time in two lunatic asylums, and went missing in early 1920."There seems to be a lot of ideas in this single sentence, perhaps break it into two shorter ones?
- Amended. DrKiernan (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Leuchtenberg's son, Dmitri, was completely certain Tschaikovsky was an impostor and was recognized by Felix as his sister, ..."Eh, Dimitri "was recognized by Felix as his sister"?
- Amended. DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"... remained for just over a year.""Just" could be misconstrued as a POV-ish context, why not "slightly more than a year" or just "more than a year"?
- Amended. DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"... peripatetically ..."This word might be of a higher level than the average 16–18-year-old student is familiar with (I had to look it up). The way it is used is eloquent, but is it possible to substitute with simpler words to achieve the same result?
- Changed to "itinerantly". DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"... "still unique", though the database of DNA patterns ..."By "unique", did Dr Melton mean that he would not have expected such a pattern to match? Or did he mean that such a matching pattern cannot be confused with others? In the latter case, then it should be "... "still unique"; the database of DNA patterns ...", right?
- I believe she meant that the only sequence in the database that matches that of Anderson was that from Maucher. DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Other works based on the premise that Anderson was Anastasia, written before the DNA tests, include biographies by Peter Kurth and James Blair Lovell. More recent biographies by John Klier, Robert Massie and Frances Welch that describe her as an impostor were written after the DNA tests proved she was not Anastasia."
- Not sure these require cites (since they are the sources for this article), but if needed, then I guess a footnote pointing this out would suffice.
- I prefer to avoid adding footnotes unless required to do so. DrKiernan (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would tend to agree, but am leaving this unstruck in case others have a different opinion. Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Similarly, other animated versions utilize parts of Anderson's discredited escape story for inspiration, and include scenes of Anastasia's escape on a cart or characters such as Alexander Tschaikovsky."Source(s)?
- The discredited escape story is discussed in the preceding section, but the scenes described are from a straight-to-video/dvd cartoon that I have never seen. The only way I can deal with objections to this sentence is to remove it. DrKiernan (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am fine with the discredited escape story (described earlier), but the description of scenes does need a cite, even if from the video (as a primary source) itself. Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll remove it, if only until the specific cartoon is identified. DrKiernan (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, I find this to be a very well written and comprehensive article that was enjoyable to read. I would support it once the above are cleared up. However, ... (see below) Jappalang (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With the clarification of the above and the resolution of the images, I support this article for Featured Article status. Jappalang (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the in depth review. DrKiernan (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on image grounds Image review:
- (Amendment) File:Anna1922berlin.jpg: turns out the book this photo was in is still copyrighted in the US.
(Previous statement) File:Anna1922berlin (bigger).jpg: The supporting {{PD-US}} is wrong (creation does not equal publishing). If the photo was verifiably sold to a newspaper agency before 1923, then it should be {{PD-1923}}. If not, then the first publishing is 1929 in Gilliard's book. In that case, {{PD-US-1996}} should be used instead.
- I've restored the original file. DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a misunderstanding. What I meant was that the Commons copy can be used, but its copyright status in the US should be clarified either to PD-1923 or PD-US-1996, depending on the publication date. Jappalang (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure they apply since it was not published before 1923 and if published in 1929, then it might still be in copyright in 1999. How about commons:template:PD-old-80? DrKiernan (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Crap, I was reminded by your statement to check if Gillard's book and its contents were copyrighted (and renewed) in the US. This turned out to be the result; registration AF3490 on 6 Mar 29, renewed R171272 on 28 May 56, which means the book and contents are copyrighted in US until 2025 (1929 + 95 + 1), according to http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm (works published abroad 1923–77, complying with US formalities). This photo cannot be stored on Wikipedia or Commons as a "free" photo. Since we have File:Franziska Schanzkowska.jpg (with a modified enlargement of the face), this might not even qualify as fair use identification. Unless there is some critical commentary on this photo (or of the subject's appearance in it), it should be excised. Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two points: (1) Gilliard does not hold copyright of the photograph. He can't justifiably renew or claim copyright on something he doesn't own. If necessary, it can be cropped to remove his text, but the text is probably too simple for copyright to apply. (2) File:Franziska Schanzkowska.jpg is a picture of Schanzkowska. The other is a picture of Anderson. I think the lead picture should be of Anderson. DrKiernan (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- US old copyright laws did not care for "true ownership" of a work until the Universal Copyright Convention was established in 1952 (and accepted by US in 1954); the first to register a work's copyright in US actually got the US copyright (several court battles resulted because of this). Gilliard holds the US copyright (by US laws) if he registered it first in US. Even if not, by registering the copyright, Gilliard by proxy registered it for the (unidentified) photographer, which is still valid for US copyright. The point is unless the book disclaims copyright for the photo, it is copyrighted under US law. This would be moot if it can be proven that the photo was published in another foreign source before it ever appeared in Gilliard's book. Jappalang (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not know that it was previously published, so I have added a fair-use rationale. DrKiernan (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your rationale works for me; although it can be argued that placements of it and the image of Schanzkowska could be exchanged in the article, I will leave that for others to debate on. One point though, by registering for US copyright, Gilliard did announce an intent to publish it in US; whether he produced physical copies in the States and whether they are in English are other matters. Thus, I leave this unstruck but considered it cleared. Jappalang (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Kszenyija Georgijevna of Russia.jpg: when was this copy of the painting first published? It is certainly not Les Portraits de Philippe A. de László, which can be read here at Internet Archive. UK copyright laws deem publishing as "copies made available to public via sales or other legal means". As László's works are private commisions, they are unpublished until copies (such as this grey-and-white photo) are released. László died in 1937, which means any of his work published during 1923–77 could have their US copyright renewed by the URAA treaty.
- I never claimed it was published in 1922; I'm using that source to demonstrate that it was painted before 1923. I do not know when it was first published as a photograph or print. DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, understood. Regardless, painting (creation) does not equal publication, and we would need a publishing date for that black and white photo (or an earlier reproduction in any form). Jappalang (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, with that strict reading, it looks like it'll have to be removed. Perhaps File:RMS Berengaria.jpg, File:Imperator LOC ggbain 13359u.jpg, File:USS Imperator (ID-4080).jpg or File:Rachmaninoff seated at Steinway grand piano.jpg could be used instead here? DrKiernan (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, those four photos are verifiably in the public domain. I would suggest having Rachmanioff's photo, which looks more outstanding than photos of Imperator. Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Switched. DrKiernan (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ingrid Bergman and Yul Brynner in Anastasia trailer.jpg: This capture is a copyviolation. The claim that its source (the trailer) did not bear a copyright notice is false; it is prominently displayed at the 0:41–0:47 mark of the trailer, and the copyright was renewed by 20th Century Fox as well.
- This point will be moot as soon as the file is deleted. DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As the decision on deletion is taking some time, and the discussion of whether the copyrights of films extend to their trailers appears unresolved [39], I have replaced it with a free image of Bergman: File:Ingrid Bergman 1946.jpg. DrKiernan (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rowe's shot of Bergman is verifiably in the public domain (taken during his duties as an NPS employee). Note that the Anastasia shots are copyvios because the trailer bore a copyright notice that was renewed, not because of its movie version (I should note that Sabucat is the primary cause for all erroneous uploads of trailer shots with his claim that all trailers before 1968 never carried copyright notice). Jappalang (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The remaining image, File:Franziska Schanzkowska.jpg, is verifiably in the public domain if we accept that the two sources pointed out never named the author. File:Botkin,Gleb.jpg is acceptable since no such photo has appeared before its upload here, and the user has stated it is his own work. Jappalang (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading the introduction, I don't really get the point. Perhaps add some context about Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia, and why claiming to be her could be taken seriously. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I see. I've made an edit which hopefully addresses this [40]. DrKiernan (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:20, 10 January 2010 [41].
- Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Heywood was the Bounty mutineer who got away. Denounced, captured, tried and sentenced to hang, he was given a Royal Pardon and then allowed to continue his naval career, becoming a favourite of the top brass who were happy to accelerate his promotion. How did this come about? There are murky elements in this story—hints of bribery, perjury, and class prejudice, and somewhere along the line three men were executed. Heywood's story throws some fascinating light on the workings of the British Navy in the late 18th century, and provides a new dimension to the oft-told tales of "Captain Bligh and Mr Christian". Thanks to Ruhrfisch for the map, and to others for generous peer review help; I believe this is now ready for FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I reviewed the prose in this article extensively at the peer review and see no point in repeating it. In my view, it amply meets the FA qualifications. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the support and for the helpful review attention. Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No dabs or dead externals, and alt text looks good. Dates are all Day Month Year. --an odd name 03:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: after correcting some stuff on the images (and uploading a few better ones), they are all verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport:
"In 1791 Heywood and his companions were captured in Tahiti by the search vessel HMS Pandora and transported back to England in irons. This voyage was prolonged and eventful; Pandora was wrecked on the Great Barrier Reef, four of Heywood's fellow-prisoners were drowned, and Heywood himself was fortunate to survive."My reading gave me the initial impression that he was "transported back to England" by Pandora, which becomes a puzzlement since it was wrecked on the Reef. Could this be clarified?- I've amended to: "...by the search vessel HMS Pandora and held in irons for transportation to England. The subsequent journey was prolonged and eventful;..." I hope that is clearer.
"... Douglas, Isle of Man, the fifth of the eleven children ..."Is this where (between "... Man, the fifth ...") a dash would be better, or by breaking the following clause into a short sentence?- I've gone for the second of your options, as a dash looks intrusive.
"... as sailing master to Captain James Cook on the latter's final voyage."Suggestion: "... as Captain James Cook's sailing master during the explorer's final voyage."- Suggestion accepted.
File:Tahiti scene frontispiece.jpg's caption seems to be wrong... the title of the drawing is "George Young and his wife (Hannah Adams) of Pitcairn Islands" (as from the book), which seems to indicate this is Batty's vision of life at Pitcairn Islands, not Tahiti...- Yes, I didn't read the title carefully enough. George Young was the son of the mutineer Edward Young, and was not born until after the events described in this article. The picture probably dates from the 1820s, and is barely relevant to Heywood's story. Rather than contrive a connection, I have replaced the image with Bligh's sectional drawing of a breadfruit plant (which was in an earlier version of the article but was dropped because of image clutter). Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"... all the 14 surviving Tahiti fugitives ..."This makes it sound like the fugitives were Tahiti natives... "... fugitives in Tahiti ..."?- Agreed, done
"... Montagu of Hector ... was "my particular friend" ..."Heywood's or Paley's friend? Perhaps drop "my" from the quote and identify whose friend Montagu was?- Done
Did Heywood ever go back to Tahiti for his first wife and daughter?- There is no record that he did.
"The only known child of Heywood ..."I think you meant "The only confirmed child of Heywood ...", right?- Yes, OK
Great read, Heywood's court-martial was so full of COI then... I would like some clarification of the above niggles first. With the clarifications, I support this article for FA. Jappalang (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments, to which I have responded. How does it look? Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I made the map for the article and made a few comments about it in peer review, where I felt it was already ready to pass FAC. I have made one edit since and reread it carefully. My only quibble is whether it would be better to identify the breadfruit plant illustation as Sections of the breadfruit plant, from Bligh's book, rather than the current Sections of the breadfruit plant, drawn by Mackenzie (since the image page makes it clear that the identity of Mackenzie is not known). Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your map work, and for your support, also for your suggestion relating to the breadfruit drawing. I will fix the caption accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportOppose While this article is very well-written and engaging, I feel that it is not quite comprehensive. More needs to be said about Heywood's career after the Bounty incident. I read the Dictionary of National Biography entry on Heywood and it provides some more details, such as his participation in what appears to be the Napoleonic Wars, and it also lists the following source, which may be helpful: A. C. F. David, ‘From mutineer to hydrographer: the surveying career of Peter Heywood’, International Hydrographic Review, new ser., 3/2 (2002), 6–11. I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I can add more about his post-pardon career, though I am reluctant to add too much. The main focus of the article must be on the part of his life which was notable. His later career, while honourable, was far less notable, and had he not been the ex-Bounty mutineer he would, I am sure, have remained one of hundreds of naval officers who served their country honourably but anonymously. I have plenty of sources, including the DNB entry (but not the David article to which you refer) and it should'nt take too long to put something together, but give me 24 hours. Brianboulton (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, I have expanded the "Subsequent career" section to give more details of Heywood's various appointments and activities after he resumed his naval career. There's a bit more about his hydrography activities, and mention is made of what seems to be his one and only direct engagement with the French during the Napoleonic wars - the clash with the frigates in the Bay of Biscay. Other events are touched on - but his career was worthy rather than action-filled. He was mainly well away from the heat of battle. I think the general tenor of his career (conscientious, honourable obscurity) is properly represented with the new material. I have had to slightly reconstruct the latter part of the article, but nothing of significance has been removed. I am happy with this balance. Let me know your feelings. Brianboulton (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - these improvements are even better than I was hoping for - BB, you always exceed expectations! I am happy to support this article. Awadewit (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And thank you for your review, support and kind comments. Brianboulton (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - these improvements are even better than I was hoping for - BB, you always exceed expectations! I am happy to support this article. Awadewit (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, I have expanded the "Subsequent career" section to give more details of Heywood's various appointments and activities after he resumed his naval career. There's a bit more about his hydrography activities, and mention is made of what seems to be his one and only direct engagement with the French during the Napoleonic wars - the clash with the frigates in the Bay of Biscay. Other events are touched on - but his career was worthy rather than action-filled. He was mainly well away from the heat of battle. I think the general tenor of his career (conscientious, honourable obscurity) is properly represented with the new material. I have had to slightly reconstruct the latter part of the article, but nothing of significance has been removed. I am happy with this balance. Let me know your feelings. Brianboulton (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support an excellent biographical article providing just the right amount of background on the mutiny. As Awadewit, I would also be interested to know a bit more about his actions during the Napoleonic Wars. --DavidCane (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, David. See per above what I've done to extend the information on Heywood's subsequent career, and by all means add a comment. Brianboulton (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perfect. I've added a link to British invasions of the Río de la Plata.--DavidCane (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I added a note that the ODNB requires a fee, since it's only free to library card holders in the UK) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The one that got away...fixed now. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:20, 10 January 2010 [42].
- Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum, Parrot of Doom 22:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's no hoax. For about 200 years it was popularly believed in England that publicly auctioning your wife was a legitimate alternative to divorce. Hopefully this little historical backwater will be of interest to some. Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Post-promotion note, the article was changed from Wife selling to Wife selling (English custom) on February 21, 2011; I've corrected the link above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Two dab links;no dead non-subscription external links.- Alt text looks good, and it made me read about architrave. Shows how much I know.
Ref dates mix Day Month Year and ISO style; use one for consistency. Couldn't find any prose dates.
This made Did you know about a week ago. Good to see it here this soon; just make sure the technicals are tidy. --an odd name 23:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I think I've got all the dates and fixed the two dablinks. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No dab links. Ref dates are all Day Month Year now. --an odd name 03:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: I'll sign off on CPI being the correct measure here for the worth of money over time, even though a £100 wife seems more like a luxury good than part of the unskilled consumer bundle :). The low sums indicate that wives were clearly being treated as consumption goods, and their productive qualities assumed (or at least treated as standard or defrayment of operating costs). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: after some corrections and tidying up, images are verifiably in the public domain (although the status of File:Contemporary wife selling print georgian scrapbook 1949.jpg is dependent on the claims of a Master's thesis). Jappalang (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for inciting my wife to knock my head for "Don't get any ideas!" while reading this article. Support for writing this fine article that highlights the status of women in ole English society and the early evolution of their rights. Jappalang (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing refs Finlay 2005, p. 15 • Ling.Nut 04:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support excellent article. Oh, the good old days {: 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs)
- Comments -
Newspapers and magazines in your references need to be italicised.Current ref 53 lacks a publisher
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a tweak; William Murray was commonly known simply as "Lord Mansfield"; you might want to change that. Other than that, consider this a support. Ironholds (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find where the article says this, so maybe Parrot of Doom's already sorted it. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't, that's the point. See the image tag "William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield viewed wife selling as conspiracy to commit adultery." and the paragraph next to it "Lord Chief Justice William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield...". It is normally just "Lord Mansfield". Ironholds (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find where the article says this, so maybe Parrot of Doom's already sorted it. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment: An engaging read in which I found a few relatively minor issues for consideration:-
- The lead contains the statement "I do not think I have a right to prevent it". This is part of a statement which is cited in the main text and therefore does not need to be cited in the lead. Likewise, the statement about cases of local Poor Law Commissioners forcing husbands to sell their wives rather than having to maintain the family in workhouses is cited both in the lead and the text, as is the story that in 1913 a woman claimed that she had been sold to one of her husband's workmates for £1.
- True, but I went with the principle that extraordinary claims need extraordinary citations. I'm quite happy to remove them if it's a blocker for you. My understanding though is that quotations have to be attributed immediately after their appearance. Happy to to be proven wrong though. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right about quotations being cited on appearance. What I would do is put an uncited paraphrase in the lead and put the quote, cited, into the text. That avoids have double citations for the same information. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, there are now no citations or quotations in the lead. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right about quotations being cited on appearance. What I would do is put an uncited paraphrase in the lead and put the quote, cited, into the text. That avoids have double citations for the same information. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but I went with the principle that extraordinary claims need extraordinary citations. I'm quite happy to remove them if it's a blocker for you. My understanding though is that quotations have to be attributed immediately after their appearance. Happy to to be proven wrong though. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the "James Bryce" quoted is Lord Bryce, the English jurist, he should be linked.
- He is linked. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, my mistake. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He is linked. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "the wife's consent was a necessary condition for the sale" is a slightly odd statement, bearing in mind that the sales were not recognised in law. Perhaps it should be preceded by "by common agreement..."
- I don't see the issue here. The wife wasn't dragged unwillingly to the sale, and several of the accounts make it clear that if she onjected to her purchaser then the sale didn't go ahead. Whether that was "legal" or not seems irrelevant, as the law itself was at that time eqiovocal. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is that "necessary condition" is a legal, or at least legalistic, phrase, and its use implies the existence of rules governing wife selling procedure. These "rules" were by common agreement, not law. This should be clarified, hence my suggestion above.
- OK. I've changed it to the simpler "the wife had to agree to the sale". --Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is that "necessary condition" is a legal, or at least legalistic, phrase, and its use implies the existence of rules governing wife selling procedure. These "rules" were by common agreement, not law. This should be clarified, hence my suggestion above.
- I don't see the issue here. The wife wasn't dragged unwillingly to the sale, and several of the accounts make it clear that if she onjected to her purchaser then the sale didn't go ahead. Whether that was "legal" or not seems irrelevant, as the law itself was at that time eqiovocal. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Of the 158 cases in which occupation can be established, the largest group (19) were involved in the livestock or transport trades, 14 worked in the building trade, 5 were blacksmiths, 4 were chimney-sweeps, and 2 were described as gentlemen..." That accounts for 44 out of 158. It is hard to imagine what the remaining 114 different occupations might have been - just curious.
- Do you intend to respond? Can you think of 114 different occupations each so different from one another that none can be classified as a group? Perhaps the quoted figures are incorrect? Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've checked, and the figures are exactly as Thompson gives them. He's only analysed certain occupations into groups; the remainder, such as pauper (2), pensioner (2), gingerbread hawker (1), woodward (1), returned from transportation (2), etc., aren't categorised. The point he's making is that it wasn't just a rural peasant custom. Even gentlemen and at least one Duke bought a wife. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that's fair enough. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've checked, and the figures are exactly as Thompson gives them. He's only analysed certain occupations into groups; the remainder, such as pauper (2), pensioner (2), gingerbread hawker (1), woodward (1), returned from transportation (2), etc., aren't categorised. The point he's making is that it wasn't just a rural peasant custom. Even gentlemen and at least one Duke bought a wife. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you intend to respond? Can you think of 114 different occupations each so different from one another that none can be classified as a group? Perhaps the quoted figures are incorrect? Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I find this section confusing: "The lengths to which some of those involved in such sales would go to legalise the trade is demonstrated by a bill of sale for a wife, preserved in the British Museum.[nb 3] It is contained in a petition in 1768, to a Justice of the Peace in Somerset, presented by a wife who about 18 months previously had been sold by her husband for £6 6s "for the support of his extravagancy". The petition does not object to the sale; rather that her husband returned three months later, and demanded more money from his wife and her new "husband"."
- First, the wording "The lengths to which some of those involved in such sales would go" sounds POVish rather than neutral
- I'm not sure how you can infer a POV here. The phrasing implies that people sought to make the ritual and sale as legal as possible, which was the case. Parrot of Doom 23:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, your wording implies that the steps people would go to to legalise the trade were extraordinary. That's the POV. Otherwise you would simply say "Those involved in such sales took steps to legalise the trade, as demonstrated by a bill of sale for a wife, preserved in the British Museum" or similar neutral wording. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "Those involved in such sales sometimes attempted to legalise the transaction, as demonstrated by a bill of sale for a wife ...". --Malleus Fatuorum 18:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, your wording implies that the steps people would go to to legalise the trade were extraordinary. That's the POV. Otherwise you would simply say "Those involved in such sales took steps to legalise the trade, as demonstrated by a bill of sale for a wife, preserved in the British Museum" or similar neutral wording. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how you can infer a POV here. The phrasing implies that people sought to make the ritual and sale as legal as possible, which was the case. Parrot of Doom 23:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Secondly, what does "it" refer to in "It is contained..."
- "is demonstrated by a bill of sale for a wife, preserved in the British Museum.[nb 3] It is contained in a petition" - perfectly clear to me that "It" refers to the bill. Parrot of Doom 23:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The last object mentioned before "it" is the British Museum, so "it" should be replaced by "The bill..."
- Nobody will assume that the British Museum could ever be found inside a petition. Parrot of Doom 18:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "The bill is contained in a petition ...". --Malleus Fatuorum 18:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The last object mentioned before "it" is the British Museum, so "it" should be replaced by "The bill..."
- "is demonstrated by a bill of sale for a wife, preserved in the British Museum.[nb 3] It is contained in a petition" - perfectly clear to me that "It" refers to the bill. Parrot of Doom 23:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thirdly, I can't see that what follows indicates "the lengths to which some would go..." etc
- Drawing up a bill of sale, akin to a legal document, is a pretty clear indicator that the ritual was seen by many as perfectly legitimate, and not merely an archaic ceremony for a bit of fun. Parrot of Doom 23:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, reads OK if the "lengths" phrase is removed. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopefully this is dealt with now, as above. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, reads OK if the "lengths" phrase is removed. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Drawing up a bill of sale, akin to a legal document, is a pretty clear indicator that the ritual was seen by many as perfectly legitimate, and not merely an archaic ceremony for a bit of fun. Parrot of Doom 23:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First, the wording "The lengths to which some of those involved in such sales would go" sounds POVish rather than neutral
Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I look forward to supporting if these points can be ironed out. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am happy with the responses and am pleased to support the article now. Hope to see it as TFA someday soon. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you even begin to imagine the mayhem? Thanks Brian. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I intend to nominate it at the earliest appropriate opportunity. Brianboulton (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you even begin to imagine the mayhem? Thanks Brian. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am happy with the responses and am pleased to support the article now. Hope to see it as TFA someday soon. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"all but the very wealthiest" Is "very wealthiest" idiomatic (not a rhetorical question)? Seems to me that "wealthiest" gets the point across without the intensifier.Dabomb87 (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- The point I'm trying to get across is that divorce was really only an option for the super-rich, the wealthiest of the wealthy. I think "very wealthiest" is OK, but I'm not wedded to it if others object. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Leave it be; I'm not too bothered. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The point I'm trying to get across is that divorce was really only an option for the super-rich, the wealthiest of the wealthy. I think "very wealthiest" is OK, but I'm not wedded to it if others object. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a minor inconsistency: "paid 7s. 6d." (dots are there), but "She was sold for 2s 6d" (no dots).Dabomb87 (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- It's been such a long time since we used £sd that I had to check whether or not it was usually written with dots, but it seems that it was, so I've added them where they were missing. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:20, 10 January 2010 [43].
- Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 22:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it's been copyedited several times by Malleus, been through a very helpful peer review, and now is ready to shine on the big stage. Well, as much as any medieval bishop can shine... Yet another (and hopefully last) of the Gregorian mission bishops, this guy's a bit more shadowy than even Mellitus, since we don't have the gout or the miracles to colour up his life. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review no problems Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tech bit no dabs, no deads, alt text present and appropriate, I fixed presumed typo Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was one problem with the alt text: the Saints Portal used a purely decorative image but did not mark it with "
|link=
|alt=
" as per WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. I fixed that and the alt text is fine now. Eubulides (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was one problem with the alt text: the Saints Portal used a purely decorative image but did not mark it with "
- Support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm starting to dream about Gregorian bishops (this may be non-actionable)
- I promise you that this one is the last one for a while. They raised the requirements for Featured Topics, so I had to bring two more bishops up to FA standards...Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Justus (occasionally Iustus) Given that Latin lacked a "J", wouldn't it always have been Iustin in the Latin texts? In other words, isn't one just a transliteration of the other?
- Yeah, but one modern author has decided to say "Iustus" .. why I do not know. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- '
'Rochester seems a bit terse even as a heading - Bishop of... perhaps
- Sounds good. Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- + Support (after discussion) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Not the most exciting of the bishops, is he? Nevertheless, a clearly written and (I take it from reading the commentary on the talk page here) a comprehensive article. Awadewit (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, well, he wasn't supposed to hit FAC, but they changed the requirements for Featured Topics and he was more FA-able than my other choices... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review - All sources meet WP:RS. Awadewit (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Overall excellent and of a professional standard. Just a couple matters of clarification that tripped me up while I was reading:
- "survives in the Textus Roffensis and a copy based on this" Unsure what "this" is referring to.
- clarified to "... survives in the Textus Roffensis, as well as a copy based on the Textus in the 14th-century Liber Temporalium." Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two seemingly contradictory sentences are confusing me: "after Laurence's death, Mellitus became Archbishop of Canterbury" and then "Bede's account of Eadbald's conversion states that it was Laurence, Justus' predecessor at Canterbury". The former suggests that Mellitus succeeded Laurence as Archbishop of Canterbury (which I believe is true), and the latter suggests (at least to me) that Justus succeeded Laurence directly.
- Predecessor doesn't always mean immediate, unfortunately. I could drop the "predecessor" and make it "Bede's account of Eadbald's conversion states that it was Laurence, an earlier Archbishop of Canterbury..." if you like. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, that would just be weasel-wording on my account. I wasn't aware of the scope of that word, clearly. :) --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Predecessor doesn't always mean immediate, unfortunately. I could drop the "predecessor" and make it "Bede's account of Eadbald's conversion states that it was Laurence, an earlier Archbishop of Canterbury..." if you like. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "survives in the Textus Roffensis and a copy based on this" Unsure what "this" is referring to.
- Nice work! --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, concerns addressed! --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:20, 10 January 2010 [44].
- Nominator(s): Jonyungk (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article on a known but little-discussed (in the West) area of Russian classical music, one that helped shape Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky as a creative personality and determined his outcome as a composer. After much work and input through peer review, for which I am thankful to my fellow Wiki editors, I believe this article is of a depth, bredth and overall quality to be nominated for FA status. Jonyungk (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- No dab links or external links (dead or otherwise)—good.
- Alt text looks good. I had thought of adding details to the Martin painting alt, but they'd distract from the ultimate point of the article IMO.
- I couldn't find any full dates (i.e. with months, days, and years); make sure any that are present have a consistent format in the prose and in the refs.
--an odd name 23:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- Is the article intended to be in UK or US English? At present there are spellings from each in it (e.g. UK recognised, counsellor and programme but US theater, color and program). It really ought to be consistent throughout. Happy to give it the once-over if you say whether it should be UK or US. - Tim riley (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for your offer. The spellings should be US, not UK. Jonyungk (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Only a handful of changes: I have of course not tampered with any UK spellings within quotations. I'll go through the article in the next few days and offer any more general comments. At first sight it looks like a plausible FA candidate, but more a.s.a.p. - Tim riley (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for your offer. The spellings should be US, not UK. Jonyungk (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Later: This is an excellent article, highly readable and full (but not too full) of relevant information. Everything that seems to need a reference has one (though see my comment below on one para in the Tchaikovsky's private concerns about the Five section) and no one source is relied on too heavily. I look forward to adding my support for its elevation to FA. In advance of that, a few, not on the whole earth-shaking, comments:
- Thank you very much for all the comments below, nearly all of which I have incorporated. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead
You use lower case for the definite article in "the Five" but capitalise the article in "The Mighty Handful." Is this deliberate? (I notice you use a lower case "the Mighty Handful" later in the article.)"verbally" – I think you mean "orally" – verbally means with words (spoken, written or printed)m-dashes – I believe the WP standard for such parenthetical dashes is to use n-dashes with a space on either side, but someone with a better knowledge of the MOS may like to confirm or otherwise"the older Rimsky-Korsakov" – ambiguous: it could be read either as meaning Nikolai when older or else some other, senior, Rimsky-Korsakov. Something like "and, by then, Rimsky Korsakov" might be clearer.
- Early years
"the first presentation of an opera occurred in Russia" – "occurred" is a strange word here: perhaps omit it?"composers, these composers" – suggest "composers, they""Likewise, while the first public concert" – there are two likewises in this sentence. Perhaps "similarly" for the second?"native-born" – tautology: just "native" is enough
- 'The Five
"style and color that was different" - style and color that were different?
- Rubinstein and the St. Petersburg Conservatory
"performed and composed in Europe" – As St. Petersburg and Moscow are in Europe too, perhaps this should read "Western Europe" or some such"Leipzig" – I'd be inclined to blue-link this, I think
- Difference in Russianness
"thrown out of the Preobrazhensky Lifeguard regiment" – rather colloquial for an encyclopaedia article, possibly?
- With the Five
"that resulted Romeo and Juliet" – missing "in", I think"After hearing Tchaikovsky play the final movement of this symphony" – a piano reduction, I imagine: perhaps worth spelling out?"a tone poem based in this subject" – based on?
- Balakirev
"…Russian Music Society (RMS) orchestra. His replacement at the RMS was Balakirev." A bit convoluted; you could simplify on the lines of "…Russian Music Society orchestra, and was replaced by Balakirev." (RMS does not occur later in the article, so the parenthetical mention is not needed)"he looked forward to discussing the piece with him on an upcoming trip to Moscow" – it isn't clear which of them would be making the trip; the casual reader may not immediately remember at this point who was based in St. Petersburg and who in Moscow. Might be worth clarifying.- I have clarified briefly that Balakirev was writing from St. Petersburg. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rimsky-Korsakov
"its charming orchestration ... its structural novelty, and most of all by the freshness" – this would read more easily if you replaced the "by" with dots.
- Stasov, The Tempest and the Little Russian symphony
"center the plot around the heroine" – some people get frightfully exercised by "centre around", insisting that it should be "centre on". I am indifferent, personally, but I just mention it.
- Tchaikovsky's private concerns about the Five
"he wrote to von Meck" – Russian usage may well be different but in German usage when referring to Herr X von Y by surname alone, the "von" is not used – thus one refers to e.g. Karajan or Bismarck not von Karajan or von Bismarck. I just raise the point so that you can assure yourself that including the "von" here is idiomatic – e.g. does David Brown so refer to her?- Brown used either "Mrs." or her first name before "von". I have changed the passages in question to match. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Tchaikovsky's analysis of each of the Five was unsparing". This paragraph contains three strongly expressed judgments: are they all covered by the one reference at the end of the para? Decidedly POV if not.- They were all covered by the reference, but I have repeated that reference in the other two sentences in question out of clarity. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Balakirev returns
"Tchaikovsky declined the project at first, claiming the subject left him cold." This reads as though Tchaikovsky was lying. A more neutral verb such as "saying" might be safer.
– Tim riley (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is an excellent candidate for FA, in my opinion. It demonstrably meets FA criteria 1(a), (c), (d), and (e) and 2, 3, and 4, and speaking as a devotee of classical music (though not a Tchaikovsky specialist) I see absolutely no reason to doubt that it meets criterion 1(b) as well. In passing, let me add that it is one of the best-written articles I have had the pleasure of reading for quite some time. Loud applause! - Tim riley (talk) 08:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have peer reviewed this twice, with the second PR closing only a day ago. The article has improved considerably in the time since I first reviewed it and all of my concerns from both PRs have been addressed. In the interest of full disclosure, I made the composite lead image from free images. The article is interesting and very well-done. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: all issues fixed at 23:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC), archived at Talk: Fifelfoo (talk)
Support. I have reviewed this article twice for peer review, and it has improved much since the first version I read. Jonyungk has made the article both more in-depth and more accessible, and I believe that it now solidly meets all FA criteria. Ricardiana (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: An excellent article, part (I hope) of a Tchaikovsky series that becomes ever more compelling. I heavily reviwed this at the PR stage and have no further comments to add besides sincere congratulations on a fine effort. Brianboulton (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Nice work. --Carioca (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images—the images need a lot of work:- File:Youngtchaik.jpg—the used PD template requires the image to be public domain in its country of origin, but it is not demonstrably so listed.
This image is stored on Wikipedia (not Commons), and hence need only be PD in US (hence, the {{Do not move to Commons}} tag). Jappalang (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I understand that, but the template clearly says that it's only PD in the US if it's also PD in the country of origin by 1996, and there's no assertion of that anywhere. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Looks like I misread Dave's concern; the image is PD in its country of origin (Russia) on Jan 1, 1996, because it is unlikely its author (who took the photo of young Tchaikovsky in 1863) would only have died within 70 years of Jan, 1996 (admittedly a very fine line; compare that to Balakirev below).
- If that does not pass muster, then might I suggest this image of young Tchaikovsky (again 1863), which definitely can be stored on at least Wikipedia with {{PD-1923}} by virtue of publishing in 1906 or earlier. Jappalang (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Was not able to access this image. As much as I would hate to lose the other one, should it be removed at this juncture? Jonyungk (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I uploaded it as File:Tchaikovsky in 1863.JPG Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much. I have exchanged the photo. Jonyungk (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I uploaded it as File:Tchaikovsky in 1863.JPG Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Was not able to access this image. As much as I would hate to lose the other one, should it be removed at this juncture? Jonyungk (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Rubinstein repin.jpg—missing most information such as author dates, source, date of publication (if the license is to be valid), et al.
- A higher resolution version of the same image under the same file name was on Commons, with complete author, dates, etc. I deleted the version here so the Commons version is now used in the article, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Was File:Feodor Chaliapin as Ivan Susanin.jpg ever published? That would be the better license to use, and due to the Russian text I can't be sure this is valid (no mention of original copyrights again).
- A source of where this image was gotten is definitely needed. The Russian text on the image's page only states where it was taken. Without an author (and with creation just at the start of the 20th century), it is not definite that the photographer died more than 70 years ago. Jappalang (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This image has been removed. Jonyungk (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A source of where this image was gotten is definitely needed. The Russian text on the image's page only states where it was taken. Without an author (and with creation just at the start of the 20th century), it is not definite that the photographer died more than 70 years ago. Jappalang (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Balakirev1860s CuiIP 73 600.jpg—no author dates given or verifiable, needed
- If the book states the painting was an 1860s creation, then it (the page and quote) should be stated and cited, but it would be more definite if the actual author (and life) can be cited. A 20-year-old in 1869 might live to be 80 in 1929. Although his works would be in public domain in this year, URAA might have restored copyrights if his works were first published post-1922. Jappalang (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As with the image of the young Tchaikovsky, I would hate to delete this image from the article, but should it be removed at this juncture? Jonyungk (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Turns out that while there are so many books with references to Balakirev, illustrations of him are scant... Of my initial search, I could only find this illustration in volume 40 of The Windsor Magazine (1914) that could be stored at least on Wikipedia. Jappalang (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An older Balakirev here in Outlines of Music History (1913). Jappalang (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That appears to be a version of File:Balakirev 1904 Elson.PNG, which is on Commons and in the composite lead image. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is quite similar to the one in the Outlines. Anyway, I am reminded that the composite and the portraits of the Five should be on Wikipedia instead. Although published in a US publication, it is more probable the images were first published abroad and reprinted here (hence their source country copyrights are yet undetermined). The Tchaikovsky image is fine on Commons since it was created during his visit to United States (and first published there as yet, thus qualifying as a United States work), but the Five would be better here on Wikipedia. Jappalang (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - it was here originally, so I just un-deleted it and put a Do not move to Commons template on it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is quite similar to the one in the Outlines. Anyway, I am reminded that the composite and the portraits of the Five should be on Wikipedia instead. Although published in a US publication, it is more probable the images were first published abroad and reprinted here (hence their source country copyrights are yet undetermined). The Tchaikovsky image is fine on Commons since it was created during his visit to United States (and first published there as yet, thus qualifying as a United States work), but the Five would be better here on Wikipedia. Jappalang (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I found what looks to be an oil pianting of him on the Naxos website and have emailed Naxos asking for details on the artist and date. Since he died in 1910, I thought there might be a good chance of it being PD. If it is old enough to be free, there is a much higher resolution version of it here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That appears to be a version of File:Balakirev 1904 Elson.PNG, which is on Commons and in the composite lead image. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As with the image of the young Tchaikovsky, I would hate to delete this image from the article, but should it be removed at this juncture? Jonyungk (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the book states the painting was an 1860s creation, then it (the page and quote) should be stated and cited, but it would be more definite if the actual author (and life) can be cited. A 20-year-old in 1869 might live to be 80 in 1929. Although his works would be in public domain in this year, URAA might have restored copyrights if his works were first published post-1922. Jappalang (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (out) Thanks very much for your help with all this. For the time being, I will delete File:Balakirev1860s CuiIP 73 600.jpg from the article and hope to put another image in its place eventually. For instance, how would I go about capturing the image from The Windsor Magazine? It shows a relatively young Balakirev, which I had hoped to use since it shows how balakirev looked at approximately the time he met Tchaikovsky. Jonyungk (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I uploaded File:Balakirev from 1914 Windsor Magazine.png and put brief directions on how to get images from online sources on your talk page, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for both the file and the instructions. Jonyungk (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I uploaded File:Balakirev from 1914 Windsor Magazine.png and put brief directions on how to get images from online sources on your talk page, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Miranda - The Tempest JWW.jpg—source?
- This image has ben removed. Jonyungk (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a source and added it to the Commons Image page and added the image back to the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This image has ben removed. Jonyungk (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Von Meck.jpg—once again, need information on PD in home country
This image is stored on Wikipedia (not Commons), and hence need only be PD in US (hence, the {{Do not move to Commons}} tag). Jappalang (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- It appears I was somewhat wrong here in using the {{PD-US-1996}} tag. This sketch is a reproduction of an c. 1871 portrait in Russia. The portrait has been reproduced (pencil form) in 1871; hence that constitutes first publishing then. This sketch, a derivative work of the portrait, inherits the original's copyright; hence {{PD-1923}}. Now changed. Jappalang (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Youngtchaik.jpg—the used PD template requires the image to be public domain in its country of origin, but it is not demonstrably so listed.
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but there is one passage that presents minor issues for ensuring the text stands alone from the lead and can be understood by a lay reader. The passage is this:
In 1856, Balakirev and Stasov started gathering young composers through whom to spread ideas and gain a following.[26] Balakirev's first meeting with Cui came that year. Mussorgsky joined them in 1857, Rimsky-Korsakov in 1861, and Borodin in 1862.
Without reference to the lead, the reader has no idea who Stasov is. Then, we are introduced to Cui, about whom we have been told nothing in the body text and who, unlike Mussorgsky, R-S and perhaps Borodin, is unlikely to be a name familiar to a lay reader. Then, when the reader counts heads, s/he comes up with six, not Five - because it has not been explained who Stasov is and in particular that he is not a composer. There needs to be a little more detail here, including changing "Balakirev's first meeting with Cui came that year" to "First to meet with them that year was composer César Cui". The article seems otherwise a creditable piece of scholarship with outstanding prose and good linking. My reading of the above interchanges is that image issues have now been resolved to the satisfaction of one or more experienced image editors. Can someone disabuse me if they think otherwise? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You bring up a very good point. I have changed the passage in question to read, In 1856, Balakirev and critic Vladimir Stasov, who publically espoused a nationalist agenda for Russian arts, started gathering young composers through whom to spread ideas and gain a following.[26] First to meet with them that year was César Cui, an army officer who specialized in the science of fortifications. Modest Mussorgsky, a Preobrazhensky Lifeguard officer, joined them in 1857; Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, a naval officer, in 1861; and Alexander Borodin, a chemist, in 1862. Balakirev, Borodin, Cui, Mussorgsky and Rimsky-Korsakov composed in their spare time, and all five of them were young men in 1862, with Rimsky-Korsakov at just 18 the youngest and Borodin the oldest at 28.[27] Jonyungk (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That appears much better to me. hamiltonstone (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:20, 10 January 2010 [45].
- Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article traces the career of an officer who, if perhaps not quite as vital to the history of the Royal Australian Air Force itself as its "father", Air Marshal Sir Richard Williams, probably outshone him in terms of the impact he had on Australia's military and society in general, and was certainly at the top for achievements in rank and office being the RAAF's first appointee to the (de facto) role of Chief of the Defence Force, and its first Air Chief Marshal. Currently GA, as well as A-class on the MilHist and Aviation projects, I believe it's now ready for the bronze star... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have made a quick reading for grammar. On the whole, there are no glaring issues, but there are a few sentences that need to be looked at. I really only made it through the section on the 1930's, and I hope to get the rest done soon.
- Scherger quickly took to the art of flying open-cockpit biplanes,[1] and gained a reputation as a skilful if occasionally reckless pilot, being berated early in his career by his flight commander for "inverted and very low flying". (Comma splice in the first part of the sentence. Also, the" if occasionally reckless" part needs to be surrounded by commas or hyphenated as a compound adjective.
- He had married Thelma Harrick on 1 June 1929; they had a daughter, Jill. (This sentence seems unnecessarily concise). How about "He Married Thelma Harrick ..., and they had a daughter named Jill." or something of the like.
- Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Faced with the frightened woman and the enraged husband crying that he would "shoot the bitch", Scherger knocked the man down with a poker; the officer was placed under arrest while his wife was given shelter off the base, and subsequently resigned his commission. (The last phrase seems like a comma splice) Mrathel (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks Mrathel, but re. the other two points could I plead ignorance and ask you to explain a bit more about what "comma splice" is and/or the problem with it and/or a suggested alternative? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your confusion, as comma splice is totally the wrong term. These clauses have unnecessary commas:) In the first sentence, there is no need for the comma after biplanes as the subject does not change between the two clauses. If you simplify the sentence, u can say "Scherger took to the art of fly biplanes and gained a reputation...", which is correct while "Scherger took to the art of flying biplanes, and gained a reputation..." is not. The third sentence is more tricky but has the same issue, as there is no subject in the final clause even though it is separated by a comma and a conjunction. Mrathel (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I get you. Okay, grammatically I agree re. the first one, I think I probably included the comma as much for the sake of the citation than anything, but I can push that along. Wouldn't have thought we really needed the hyphens (emdashes I suppose) around "if occasionally reckless" but will do it if you insist... ;-) Re. the third, I'm not entirely happy with the sentence anyway so more than happy to take suggestions while I think of yet another way to rephrase it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two commas removed - actually I've decided I don't mind that last sentence after all now (perhaps it was losing the comma!)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I get you. Okay, grammatically I agree re. the first one, I think I probably included the comma as much for the sake of the citation than anything, but I can push that along. Wouldn't have thought we really needed the hyphens (emdashes I suppose) around "if occasionally reckless" but will do it if you insist... ;-) Re. the third, I'm not entirely happy with the sentence anyway so more than happy to take suggestions while I think of yet another way to rephrase it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- I have a concern with the use of information from the archives. That's pretty much primary sources, and it should be used with extreme care, to only cite the most uncontroversial of facts. Anything more risks getting into WP:OR territory if you attempt to interpret the source.
- I agree, so apart from some newspaper clippings and letters that are in there, I'm really only employing his file for the bare facts of promotions and postings. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://www.whereis.com/nsw/north-turramurra/sir-frederick-scherger-dr#session=MTA= a reliable source?- Well it's an online street directory so I'd rely on it to get me from place to place - does that count? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do they get their information though? Are they relying on accurate information or is it out of date? What's their reputation for accuracy? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, seriously now, per this they're ultimately a subsidiary of Telstra, Australia's major telco, and they claim their maps come from UBD, which is about as reliable as street directories get in this part of the world... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm old fashioned, I use my brain and maps to get from Point A to Point B.... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, seriously now, per this they're ultimately a subsidiary of Telstra, Australia's major telco, and they claim their maps come from UBD, which is about as reliable as street directories get in this part of the world... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do they get their information though? Are they relying on accurate information or is it out of date? What's their reputation for accuracy? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks Ealdgyth. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on refs Is it Rayner or Raynor? Multiple instances. All else looks OK. • Ling.Nut 04:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Egad, it's Rayner - tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment can it be explained what the King's Award is? It seems like it could be important, like coming first in the training course, but there is no link or explanation. Cleaned up the formatting a bit YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 14:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks mate - linked it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: very well done, in my opinion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – an excellent article that meets all of the criteria. I do, however, have a few comments, but they are not enough to withhold my support:
- "the officer was placed under arrest while his wife was given shelter off the base and subsequently resigned his commission" - I think this sentence needs to be tweaked slightly, as the final clause about his resignation somewhat seems to be referring to the wife.
- Rejigged a bit.
- Is it known why he taught Richard Casey to fly?
- Something to do I guess. Seriously, no more than what's there. I didn't find it that fascinating myself, but since I wanted to use the picture I figured I may as well mention it in the text.
- Is it known why, exactly, Scherger was awarded his CBE and CB?
- Only the CB has a (basic) recommendation - tks for reminding me, I found it while making the expansion then forgot to use it...
- The presentation of access dates in the cites are inconsistent.
- Template issues but worked around them anyway.
- In regards to the pain-in-the-butt "Honours and awards" box, there is no mention in Scherger's service record of him being awarded the Australian Defence Medal, which was actually established in 2006, and I could not spot any mention that he was awarded a "MALAYA" clasp to the General Service Medal.
- Heh, re. the first point, somebody got confused with the UK Defence Medal; re. the second, page 3 of the personnel file does mention Malaya.
Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks for review/support, Bryce. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disappointed in the writing.
- "to date"—means nothing in two years' time. Please see the MoS on this: User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style#Precise_language.2A
- Fair enough.
- and the early years of WWII.
- Hmm, do we really need a second the?
- Yes. Tony (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We won't split hairs... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Tony (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, do we really need a second the?
- "Promoted to". This occurs again in the lead; can you check the rest of the article for the omission?
- "Promoted <rank>" as opposed to "promoted to <rank>" is pretty common military terminology in my experience, though I welcome feedback from any military editors who disagree.
- It's for everyone, not just military readers. "Promoted colonel" interferes, from my unfamiliar stance, with promoted him as a colonel (PR?). The readers can do without this grammatical jargon. Tony (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's curious that omitting the "to" doesn't seem a major issue for other non-military readers in similar articles, but I see that I've used "to" elsewhere in this one as well, so will go with the latter for consistency. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's for everyone, not just military readers. "Promoted colonel" interferes, from my unfamiliar stance, with promoted him as a colonel (PR?). The readers can do without this grammatical jargon. Tony (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Promoted <rank>" as opposed to "promoted to <rank>" is pretty common military terminology in my experience, though I welcome feedback from any military editors who disagree.
- "the Northwestern Area"? If the military jargon is without "the", it's still uncomfortable for normal humans, but we could bend if it really would look strange to you.
- As a regional command, forgoing the definite article is standard terminology. I suppose I could make it clearer by saying "North West Area Command", but preferred to avoid the qualifier after "commander" appearing immediately before.
- Can you pipe to just "Darwin, Northern Territory" to reduce the blue dilution of all of those important links in the vicinity?
- No prob.
- -> "served in
a variety ofsenior posts including"- Fair enough.
- "at the age of 79"? You're leaving little grammatical words out ... is this a change in your style?
- Not really, but editors in other articles of mine have sometimes removed the little words as they see fit and it hasn't bothered me too much either way...
- It bothers me; feels stubby, not smooth. Tony (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, but editors in other articles of mine have sometimes removed the little words as they see fit and it hasn't bothered me too much either way...
- "Melbourne" hardly needed as a link, is it? They know it's in Australia from the context, and the article on Melbourne is kind of huge and irrelevant to the topic we want to drive them down right now ...?
- See where you're coming from but this seems a bit inconsistent when you've felt the need to add "Australia" to the infobox even though it seems fairly clear that he and Victoria are Australian - WDYT?
- Yes, but why link it? The article on Melbourne is simply not relevant to the topic; not vaguely. Tony (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I grant you the Melbourne article is not particulary germane to this article, although I'd have thought some non-Australian readers might like to at least know where it is on the map, but if this is part of a campaign to get fewer blue links in articles it may be bigger than this review alone. I say that purely because my level of linking in this article is pretty consistent with many FACs before and, while that doesn't automatically mean it's correct, neither does it mean a cleaver should be taken to the thing before I understand just where you're coming from. For instance, if the link to Melbourne goes, why not the one to Darwin as well, and not simply the one to Northern Territory? If the argument is that Darwin is more 'important' to the Scherger story than Melbourne, well no the town isn't in itself, the fact that it was bombed is - and bombing of Darwin is already linked. By the same standard, I think we can assume that Washington DC and Adelaide can lose their links, while Nadzab and Morotai should retain theirs, but what of Singapore and Kuala Lumper? I ask out of genuine interest, since my own linking policy is to err somewhat on the side of what people mightn't need and simply needn't bother clicking, rather than what they might need and can't click. What I have noted is that I've linked some equipment types next to names of equipment, e.g. SE5 and fighter where the latter isn't necessary if one follows the former, so will take care of those at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but why link it? The article on Melbourne is simply not relevant to the topic; not vaguely. Tony (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See where you're coming from but this seems a bit inconsistent when you've felt the need to add "Australia" to the infobox even though it seems fairly clear that he and Victoria are Australian - WDYT?
- I'd say the link is fine to stay, it's normal to link proper nouns. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's just the lead ... it would be a pity if this weren't sifted through and brought up to standard. Tony (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PS "He was very pro-Australian, and why not?" (quote) ... the last phrase sure does show the cultural cringe, which is a good reason to leave it in. Tony (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For now just altered certain aspects of the lead and responded above before moving on anything else. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the absence of any new comments for the past day or two, just an update that everything raised has been actioned or otherwise acknowledged as far as I'm aware... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For now just altered certain aspects of the lead and responded above before moving on anything else. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images most are fine File:Darwin_42.jpg is watermarked, this watermark should be removed per MOS. The image File:Adelaide_Airport_Tarmac_1967_Retouched.jpg, appears to have no history prior to digitisation, where did it come from to get on a slide? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Darwin_42.jpg isn't one I originally uploaded from the Australian War Memorial but I can probably remove the watermark and upload a new copy in the next day or so. Re. history of Adelaide_Airport_Tarmac_1967_Retouched.jpg, doesn't the original version, Adelaide_Airport_Tarmac_1967.jpg that was already on Commons, provide satisfactory info? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed watermark from Darwin_42.jpg. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very comprehensive and appears to fully comply with MOS.--Grahame (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is a comprehensive, well cited and well illustrated article which meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:20, 10 January 2010 [46].
- Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel the prior FAC issues have been resolved.
The prior FAC concluded with the following unresolved isssues:
- http://chicago.timeout.com/articles/spas-gyms/27760/spa-at-trump was questioned as a WP:RS because Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) believed it to be a "free" tourist publication designed to sell ads.
- I have found that it is not a free publication. See This TOLondon and this TONY
- http://www.odditycentral.com/pics/q1-tower-worlds-tallest-residential-building.html was also questioned as an RS by Ealdgyth
- I have swapped it out for another ref.
- http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=2203 was also questioned as an RS by Ealdgyth
- Raime (talk · contribs) has verified that this source is WP:RS because it is backed up by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, according to archived conversation.
- The infobox map (File:Map of Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) location along the Chicago River.png) was questioned as the only issue in the image review by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) because OpenStreetMap is a wiki.
- I have presented Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-06/Interactive maps as justification of wikipedia's endorsement of this map source.
- The only respondent on this issue was Peregrine Fisher (talk · contribs) who supported it's inclusion.
- I have presented Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-06/Interactive maps as justification of wikipedia's endorsement of this map source.
I look forward to addressing new concerns as they arise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has undergone these changes since the last FAC. Awadewit (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a lot of changes. --Golbez (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was not much unresolved with the last FAC. Half of the problem with the last FAC was responses awaited on the issues above. The FAC essentially timed out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWeak oppose - after reading through about 2/3rds of the article, I'm concerned that it reads a little too much like an advertisement in places (such as the Spa section), and that the prose isn't of sufficient quality to attain FA status. It could use work from a good copyeditor, as right now it reads as though a series of good and interesting facts were removed from a list, and placed in prose, one after the other. I don't think its that far from FA status, but it needs a good few hours of work. Parrot of Doom 12:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have accurately noted that I read articles in the public press one at a time and plopped facts in the article one by one. I would welcome your continued copy editing assistance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Is it necessary to have all those citations in the lead section? They're not required (as long as the relevant text is cited in the article body), and make it a little off-putting to read. Parrot of Doom 12:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC) - thanks. I'll trust that they've been moved to cover the relevant parts of the article body. Parrot of Doom 00:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved refs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Also, "However, some views distort the alignment of the second setback.a[›]" - the cref doesn't do anything. Parrot of Doom 12:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I click it, it does nothing. It should move my view to highlight a comment, or footnote. I'm viewing on Firefox, on Ubuntu 9.1 Parrot of Doom 14:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At one point both the ref and its notes were removed. Not sure if there was consensus for the removal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I click it, it does nothing. It should move my view to highlight a comment, or footnote. I'm viewing on Firefox, on Ubuntu 9.1 Parrot of Doom 14:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*"These include studio apartments, one- to four-bedroom suites" - this may be an American English thing but the "one- to four..." doesn't sit right. How about "a mixture of suites containing one to four bedrooms" or similar? Parrot of Doom 12:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*"sales@trumpchicago.com. "Trump Organization Project overview" (PDF). Press release. http://www.trumpchicago.com/_files/pdf/brochure.pdf. Retrieved 2007-05-09." - where is it written in this document that the publisher is sales@trumpchicago.com? A link to the page which contains that document may be more helpful. Also, when was that document published? Parrot of Doom 12:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The original link is the brochure link at http://www.trumpchicago.com/. What exactly would you like me to do to this ref?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the brochure, as nice as it looks, doesn't give me any details. It doesn't give a date of publication, or who published it. Apart from it being hosted on the trumpchicago.com site, I don't really have any inclination to view it as a reliable source. You'd be better off changing the url in the citation to the above link, and in the title appending something like (click "brochure" link at the foot of the page). It just helps people see where their information is coming from. You may be able to find a rough approximation of the publication date by viewing the .pdf file in Adobe software - perhaps there's a 'document creation' field in the file header.Parrot of Doom 23:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the brochure, as nice as it looks, doesn't give me any details. It doesn't give a date of publication, or who published it. Apart from it being hosted on the trumpchicago.com site, I don't really have any inclination to view it as a reliable source. You'd be better off changing the url in the citation to the above link, and in the title appending something like (click "brochure" link at the foot of the page). It just helps people see where their information is coming from. You may be able to find a rough approximation of the publication date by viewing the .pdf file in Adobe software - perhaps there's a 'document creation' field in the file header.Parrot of Doom 23:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The original link is the brochure link at http://www.trumpchicago.com/. What exactly would you like me to do to this ref?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*"The building surpassed the record for the world's highest residence," - I think you need to specify some kind of criteria here, either in a footnote or by rephrasing. I very much doubt that there aren't residences in the world that are higher than this (the Himalayas for example). Nit-picking I know, but it isn't correct. Parrot of Doom 12:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the first use of this term the qualifier "above ground-level" was included. I added it elsewhere at your request.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It still isn't right. It may contain an apartment, or living space, that is the highest residence above the ground floor of a skyscraper, but the building is certainly not the highest residence above ground level. Parrot of Doom 23:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, still not right. Parrot of Doom 00:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to give a hand or clearer instructions?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not here to offer instructions, only advice, but what I think you're trying to say is that the tower contains a residence which, contained in a single building, is the highest residence above a ground floor. You just need to word a sentence to that effect, correctly. Parrot of Doom 00:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you remove "contained in a single building", you are pretty much spot on. I don't understand why there remains confusion with the current wording.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Repetition of 'building'. Parrot of Doom 00:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did I get it this time?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better. :) Parrot of Doom 16:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did I get it this time?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Repetition of 'building'. Parrot of Doom 00:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you remove "contained in a single building", you are pretty much spot on. I don't understand why there remains confusion with the current wording.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not here to offer instructions, only advice, but what I think you're trying to say is that the tower contains a residence which, contained in a single building, is the highest residence above a ground floor. You just need to word a sentence to that effect, correctly. Parrot of Doom 00:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to give a hand or clearer instructions?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, still not right. Parrot of Doom 00:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It still isn't right. It may contain an apartment, or living space, that is the highest residence above the ground floor of a skyscraper, but the building is certainly not the highest residence above ground level. Parrot of Doom 23:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the first use of this term the qualifier "above ground-level" was included. I added it elsewhere at your request.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*"By this time, construction on the exterior of the building had passed the 53rd floor." - by what time? Jan 30th? If so, remind us with prose. Parrot of Doom 12:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several instances of critical reaction to the building, its design, and its features. They're mixed throughout the article. It would be better (IMO) to have them moved to their own section, and perhaps we could have some popular commentary on the building, news reports, public opinion, etc. Parrot of Doom 12:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you have gotten involved in editing the content. Would you care to start a "Critical reception", "Critical opinions" or "Critical commentary" section and move content that you think belongs there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't. I'm happy to help out here and there, but such large structural changes should be the responsibility of the nominator(s), if they desire to make them. Parrot of Doom 14:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have started a critical review section, but I am not sure that commentary on specific features should be moved their. I think it should be reserved for more broad brush reaction.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't. I'm happy to help out here and there, but such large structural changes should be the responsibility of the nominator(s), if they desire to make them. Parrot of Doom 14:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you have gotten involved in editing the content. Would you care to start a "Critical reception", "Critical opinions" or "Critical commentary" section and move content that you think belongs there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*"The hotel was designed so that 53 spa guest rooms could be connected to spa via a large circular staircase.[45]" - the article states that it was designed - is this no longer the case? The second half of the sentence doesn't really make any sense to me. Why wouldn't the guest rooms be connected to 'spa' (whatever that is), and I cannot mentally picture the staircase, where it is, or how it connects anything. Parrot of Doom 12:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I am not sure what the problem is. I have tried to edit the issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The hotel was designed with a large circular staircase that connects 53 spa guest rooms to spa" - the phrasing suggests a past tense, which might imply that although it was designed with this staircase, it was never actually built. You should, if the staircase exists, say "The hotel has a large circ...". What is a spa guest room, and what, in this context, does "to spa" mean? How does the staircase do what the article claims? Why is the staircase notable? Parrot of Doom 16:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The hotel was designed with a large circular staircase that connects 53 spa guest rooms to spa" - the phrasing suggests a past tense, which might imply that although it was designed with this staircase, it was never actually built. You should, if the staircase exists, say "The hotel has a large circ...". What is a spa guest room, and what, in this context, does "to spa" mean? How does the staircase do what the article claims? Why is the staircase notable? Parrot of Doom 16:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I am not sure what the problem is. I have tried to edit the issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*" International media later claimed that the planned tower" - bit vague that. How about "Some international news sources"? Parrot of Doom 12:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have watched this article expand and evolve from a distance (not a major editor) for quite some time now. It has been reviewed on multiple occasions and consensus has been reached on contentious issues from the past. In my opinion this article is well written, interesting to read (considering the subject matter), comprehensive, well researched, and neutral. It has a well written lead, appropriate and well thought out structure and very good citations. The article's length is good - concise yet informative. The images of the article compliment it amazingly well. Therfore I support its promotion to Featured Article status. DR04 (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
Current ref 10 (See the same..) has a bare url in it...- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am unconvinced by the reason that http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=2203 is reliable. If it's sourced to something from Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat wouldn't it be better to cite directly?- According to the Info section on the World Architecture News website, it appears that anyone can register and submit new projects to the building database. But the site's news articles and editorials (as opposed to the project database) seem to be reliable, as they are written and edited by an editorial team. As such, I think the editorial piece above would qualify as a reliable source from a mainstream news organization. Cheers, Rai•me 23:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be better to find some sort of third-party reliable source or sources using this site as a source. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a relatively unimportant fact, so I just removed it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be better to find some sort of third-party reliable source or sources using this site as a source. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the Info section on the World Architecture News website, it appears that anyone can register and submit new projects to the building database. But the site's news articles and editorials (as opposed to the project database) seem to be reliable, as they are written and edited by an editorial team. As such, I think the editorial piece above would qualify as a reliable source from a mainstream news organization. Cheers, Rai•me 23:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Unfortunately, my upcoming college finals mean that I lack the time needed for a full review. However, on a quick glance I did notice a paragraph in Construction that flows poorly, in my view at least. That would be "Residents are zoned to Chicago Public Schools. Residents are zoned to Ogden School and Wells Community Academy High School." A lot of repetition between these two sentences, and I think they would be better served as one larger sentence. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Support Tony (talk) 08:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —breaches of WP:OVERLINK. See my unlinkings just in the lead. In particular, the less-specific Illinois (twice), which will be shoved in the readers faces at the start of the link-target "Chicago"; "story", "parking garage" (gee, that's mystifying), and "grand opening". These are common terms, and dilute the high-value terms in the vicinity. In addition, you'll see that I've reduced the huge pipe for the "second-tallest" (list). I've prevented "1" from hanging at the end of the line.[reply]
- The prose seems much better than I've seen for this type of nomination. I noticed "January 30, 2008. April 28, 2008 marked"—could the rep be eliminated by "... 28 that year ..."?
- I am pleased that you satisfied with the prose. That gives me hope that this is not a hopeless FAC. I have changed the date wording as you suggested.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Images: TINY. Why? The "site of the tower" is just a colourful blotch, and should be at least 240px to make out what on earth it is. Then the caption would fit more comfortably, a bonus.
- Another discussant in this FAC converted the images to upright. I would prefer them larger as well. I undid these and resized the site to 240.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Second para of "Architecture". One "also", I suppose, is passable, but the second one grates ("also linking"—redundant).
- I do not understand this comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever the article is called it's the Gold Coast, not "Gold Coast", and please pipe it this way: the Gold Coast, Australia. Lots more overlinkings here, and of course throughout: it needs a link audit. Tony (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "also" in "also linking" is redundant, and the second "also" in the paragraph.
- I got it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your edit "undo upright sizes per FAC respondent" reverted all of the unlinkings of common terms in the lead that I did as a favour and diffed above. Why? And why do you insist on that USA template, and the city-state template? What the hell?
I'm opposing still.Tony (talk) 04:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]- When I tried to undo this edit in response to your comments, it said this edit cannot be undone. By accident, I started editing from that edit. I am reverting to your changes and then adding my respndent changes. Sorry for the mixup.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have also done some delinking to reduce the blue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see what USA template you are talking about.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you prefer {{USCity}} to {{city-state}}?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw oppose, but I'm intrigued: why is it necessary to use a USA or city-sate or any such template? Isn't it simple just to write it out? Then any editor can control it, and the clutter is gone. Tony (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean you prefer [[city, state|city]], [[state]] or city, state unlinked to using the templates? I am not sure what you mean by "any editor can control it, and the clutter is gone." It seems to me that {{USCity|city|state}} or {{city-state|city|state}} were created for the purpose of more efficient code. Is there consensus at FAC not to use either of these templates? It seems I have used them in most of my other FAs and I am unaware of consensus changing on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw oppose, but I'm intrigued: why is it necessary to use a USA or city-sate or any such template? Isn't it simple just to write it out? Then any editor can control it, and the clutter is gone. Tony (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, "swimming pool", "spa", "wine rack", "wine room" (gee, what could they all mean?). "Mezzanine"? (But "mezzanine loan" is fine as a link.) I have unlinked them, since your article already contains many blue links to useful and relevant technical terms. But linking to some international definition of what a "spa" is? That's beyond the pale. The readers speak English, yes? "Pillar"? "Clay"? Tony (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Leaning to support: This article endured one of the longest FACs on record in 2008 (274kb). I first encountered it last summer when I gave it a very detailed peer review and some copyediting. Unaccountably I missed the article's second FAC last autumn. I have just read it again and am pretty impressed, but as always there are issues that niggle:-
- "The design of the building incorporates three setbacks..." Even with the link, this reads oddly to those like me who equate "setback" with misfortune. Why not change it to "setback features", so that we underinformed folk are not confused?
- Mammoth sentence: "Each of the setbacks is designed to reflect the height of a nearby building; the first setback, which is on the east side of the building, aligns with the cornice line of the Wrigley Building to the east, the second setback located on the west side aligns with River Plaza to the north and with the Marina City Towers to the west, and the third setback located on the east side relates to 330 North Wabash building (formerly known as IBM Plaza)." This is over-wordy and repetitive, and should be broken up anyway. Here is my suggestion for beginning this section, losing a dozen or so words but without loss of information: "The design of the building incorporates three setback features designed to provide visual continuity with the surrounding skyline, each reflecting the height of a nearby building. The first setback, on the east side of the building, aligns with the cornice line of the Wrigley Building to the east; the second, on the west side, aligns with River Plaza to the north and with the Marina City Towers to the west. The third setback, on the east side, relates to 330 North Wabash building (formerly known as IBM Plaza)."
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The second and third paragraphs of the "Architecture" section are not about architecture. They relate to the general character of the building but not to its design or architectural features, as does the first paragraph. Perhaps the section title should be broadened?
- How is "Design and architecture"?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It will do unless you or I can come up with something better. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is "Design and architecture"?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Restaurant and Spa sections still have, for me, a slightly adverty feeling. I won't pursue this, however, except to ask for the removal of the phrase "and, for customers who arrive sufficiently early,", which does seem overtly promotional
- Removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "In October 2005, a fleet of thirty concrete trucks made 600 trips to pour 5,000 cubic yards (3,800 m3) of concrete, within a single 24-hour period, to create the 200-by-66-by-10-foot (61.0 m × 20.1 m × 3.0 m) concrete 'mat'" Can I suggest a rearrangement of this sentence, to give it a bit more impact? "Within a single 24-hour period in October 2005, a fleet of 30 concrete trucks made 600 trips to pour 5,000 cubic yards (3,800 m3) of concrete, and thus create a 200-by-66-by-10-foot (61.0 m × 20.1 m × 3.0 m) concrete 'mat'."
- Legal issues: the section deals with three quite separate issues, each with its own paragraph. Readers may not realise when one issue has finished and another begun. The second paragraph should begin: "In a separate legal development, Donald Trump was sued..." etc. It would also help to have a rough date (month, year) for when Trump was sued by Radler.
- "Critical review of the spire by Kamin is that it is not aesthetically complimentary." I don't what this means. I guess the required word is "complementary" (meaning "forming a satisfactory or balanced whole"), with e after the l, not "complimentary" with i after the l. Even so, this is Kamin's critical opinion rather than his "review". Suggested rephrase: "Kamin's critical opinion is that the spire is not aesthetically complementary".
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "...the economic slowdown that followed the financial crisis." Define the financial crisis; in a few years your readers may not know what you're talking about.
- Above in the legal issues section it is linked to Financial crisis of 2007–2010.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "...but also notes that the hotel may be a bit too decadent." Surely the last phrase must be in quotes - I'm sure it's not your POV. And perhaps a word of explanation as to what Fodor meant?
When these matters are resolved I will be happy to convert to unconditional support for a very worthy article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Prompt responses to the above concerns. I have switched to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images' The copyrighted File:20080514_Trump_Chicago_Kiosk.JPG appears to fail wp:nfcc, the distance is stated in the article, so the picture conveys no critical information, failing criteria one (replaceable with gfdl text) and thus fails FAC Fasach Nua (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Image removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've corrected WP:LAYOUT and WP:ACCESS issues that shouldn't need correcting for repeat nominators (commons links belong in External links, and templates go before images in order of items in sections: please take note for future noms). What are the numbers in italics here:
- Is the image in that you moved into Trump_International_Hotel_and_Tower_(Chicago)#Design_history in compliance?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keegan, E. (2005). Drama over Trump's Chicago tower. Architectural Record, 193, 37.
- Vaccaro, P.K. (2002). Modernist vocabulary: modernism is reemerging in what some consider a return to the true spirit of Chicago design. Urban Land, 61, 114–115, 118–121.
- I have hidden these two and a third reference that are artifacts that predate the conversion to inline citations. They were added in May 2007.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The italics are not correct, so I don't know what they want to be. Volume numbers are bolded, issue numbers are not in italics. I suggest using a cite journal template for correct formatting, and decide whether those numbers are volumes or issues. Why do you continue to list publisher and work for The New York Times? Are there two New York Times? Work=The New York Times is sufficient. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed all publisher=The New York Times Company links.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks good. --Golbez (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: One black box {{convert}} violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English: "322.5 metres (1,058 ft)". Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, though you could have easily done this yourself and just made a note here for future reference. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but then you might not have figured out how to do it. Not to imply that you didn't already know--just pointing out that with such an overwhelmingly complex template, many editors get in over their heads and use it without knowing how to make it work properly. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point; so what I do is fix it and then post a diff of my fix here so nominators are still aware. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but then you might not have figured out how to do it. Not to imply that you didn't already know--just pointing out that with such an overwhelmingly complex template, many editors get in over their heads and use it without knowing how to make it work properly. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You should not use cryptic, jargon terminology (perhaps geographically limited in usage too, and certainly not something that will be understood very many of ou readers) such as "low-e glass" without any explanation. It needs clarification. Warning--trying to figure out how to do so by following low-e to the article it redirects to might be an exercise in futility; that article is a shambles. There's a suggested merger on the talk page that might lead to an article which better explains it.
- The e in low-e should be italic; its a symbol for emissivity. the other article you should check out, and variable symbols are italicized. But you shouldn't be using that symbol in an article like this, with only one brief mention of this term. Spell it out as "low-emissivity" instead. At least then most readers will know everything they need to know about it; that its some special quality of the glass, and that they probably won't understand it any better if they look it up, so they can just continue reading. Better than seeing a strange something that isn't really a word and wondering what the hell that means or just assuming it is a typo or vandalism. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the help with the techincal term.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The e in low-e should be italic; its a symbol for emissivity. the other article you should check out, and variable symbols are italicized. But you shouldn't be using that symbol in an article like this, with only one brief mention of this term. Spell it out as "low-emissivity" instead. At least then most readers will know everything they need to know about it; that its some special quality of the glass, and that they probably won't understand it any better if they look it up, so they can just continue reading. Better than seeing a strange something that isn't really a word and wondering what the hell that means or just assuming it is a typo or vandalism. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "and by the currently on-hold Chicago Spire if completed." Avoid using dated words such as currently; see WP:DATED and try to use {{as of}} if possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How would you recommend that it to be worded.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, perhaps the best thing is to delete "currently" altogether; I think "currently" is understood, anyway. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, perhaps the best thing is to delete "currently" altogether; I think "currently" is understood, anyway. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How would you recommend that it to be worded.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:20, 10 January 2010 [47].
- Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine, if you will, a time when white men with lots of money and facial hair traveled the country and ruined their health, all for the love of some old rocks? Such was the life of Edward Drinker Cope, a brilliant and occasionally arrogant man of science who discovered literally thousands of new species. His personal feud with one Othniel Charles Marsh resulted in the greatest expansion of American paleontology ever: the entire United States wasn't big enough for the two of them. Read on, chaps. The article recently went through a pretty thorough peer review, and I believe it meets criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- No dab links or dead external links, and ref dates look consistent. Cool.
- Alt text looks good.
Given the length of some of them, I think the text of the handwriting with the whale could be added to its alt (see WP:ALT#Text).
--an odd name 20:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added to the alt text of the handwriting with the actual words per WP:ALT. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding File:Joda canidae cope1884.jpg: copyright term of p.m.a. +70 is for unpublished works. As this is a published work, it should be using a publication-based license tag (e.g. {{PD-US}}).Эlcobbola talk 23:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed, sorry, can't believe I missed that one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ts ts. Von Dir bin ich so enttäuscht, Herr Fuchs. :) Эlcobbola talk 19:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, sorry, can't believe I missed that one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Support I've made a handful of changes to the prose to make it a bit more readable; they should probably be checked to ensure I haven't changed any meanings or misunderstood anything. All in all it's an interesting article, but it needs some work on the prose, the structure, and in some places perhaps a little more detail. Nev1 (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Cope's financial fortunes soured after failed mining ventures in the 1880s, and was forced to sell off much of his fossil collection": awkward phrasing, it sounds like Cope sold his fossils because he was doing well financially.
- The sentence still reads strangely, I think the problem is with the word "soared". How about something like "In the 1880s Cope invested in mining to support his work. Though initially profitable, the mines stopped producing in 1886 and Cope was forced to sell off much of his fossil collection"? It's a bit clunkier, but I think clearer. Nev1 (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The word in question is "soured", not "soared". Is the issue just a misread, mayhaps? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could have sworn that said "soared" last time I looked. Long day. Oh well it's not the first time I've made a fool of myself and won't be the last :-) Nev1 (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the second occurrence of "Society of Friends" it is mentioned in parenthesis that it is associated with the Quakers; this should be done on the first occurrence.- It might be worth using Template:Inflation for the monetary figures to give the reader a rough idea of how much it would be today.
"but in letters to his father later on in the war": what war? This comes out of nowhere.- "Edward considered working in the South to assist freed African-Americans" is this the American south or south Europe? It's not clear especially given that the title of the section is European travels
- When letters are burned, the implication is that they no longer exist so "Many of Edward's journals and letters from the time period do not exist, for he burned them upon his return from his European" could be simplified to "Edward burned many of his journals and letters from the time period upon his return from his European". Also what does "the time period" refer to? Just his travels through Europe? Would it make more sense to put this sentence at the end of the section as a way of rounding it off rather than at the start of the second paragraph? As it is, the narrative jumps around a bit. The same is true for much of the section as after Cole burns his journals at the end of his travels we are told of the possible reasons he left.
- "Though Marsh had two university degrees in comparison to Edward's lack of formal schooling past sixteen, Edward at the age of twenty-three had published 37 scientific papers in comparison to Marsh's two published works" a bit long-winded and there's some repetition.
- When it is mentioned that Marsh and Cope initially seemed to be friends, it might be worth reminding the reader that they would later become rivals.
I think the reader is left wondering for too long how the "feud" originated, especially since it is mentioned that Marsh tried to damage Cope's reputation before their disagreement is mentioned or even explained. The implication of mentioning Cope's prolific output (especially when comparing it to that of Marsh) is that it was professional jealousy, and I was surprised to learn that it was because Marsh rubbished Cope.
- It is a tricky situation to deal with, perhaps a line could be added explaining that the rivalry stemmed from Marsh showing Cope up one time, but I'll defer to your judgement.
When Marsh is mentioned I think it would be helpful to explain why his friendship with Cope is important. What was he studying at university, would he later become a prominent palaeontologist?- It feels like in places there are details missing, for example why did Cole stop his cave visits? Was it because he no longer had time or did something in particular put Cope off?</ref> Oh well, if it’s not explained nothing more can be said about it. Nev1 (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain what he was looking for when "In the autumn of 1871 Cope headed farther west to the fossil fields of Kansas", or was it simply any fossils he could find?- "he maintained this pattern from 1871-1879": including the break downs from exhaustion? This could do with a little more explanation (even just something along the lines of "he ventured into the desert every summer and wrote up his findings in the winter from 1871 to 1879").
- A note about why Thomas Henry Huxley is significant would be useful; it could be as little as saying "…little impact on anyone save palaeontologist Thomas Henry Huxley" so readers know he was relevant.
- "Cope's relations with Marsh turned into a competition for bones between the two, known today as the Bone Wars": repetition of "bone", would "fossil" suffice on the first occurrence? Of course, fossils doesn't refer exclusively to bones, so I don't object too much to this repetition.
- "While Lakes sent Marsh some 1,500 pounds of bone, he also sent Cope some of his found specimens": "some of his found specimens" is awkward.
- "one of the most recognizable dinosaur recreations of the time period": awkward phrasing again, is "period" necessary?
- The last sentence of the Bone Wars section seems tagged on as an afterthought, can it be linked back to Marsh's position as chief palaeontologist?
- "[Marsh's] position at Yale meant he had guaranteed access…": what position at Yale? This is the first time it is mentioned.
- Unless it was proven, I'd recommend adding "alleged" before misallocation to the following: "No congressional hearing was created to investigate the misallocation of funds".
- Was Marsh removed from his position with the Survey as a result of Cope's actions or for some other reason?
"[Cope's] wife cared for him when she herself was not ill": did she return to be with Cope or did he go to here? Was she often ill? Nev1 (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Many thanks for the review. I believe I have addressed most of your points above, adding bits to clarify and whatnot. I've rearranged the European travels section to two paragraphs, hopefully the flow is more logical and clear now. I've also tried to elaborate on some of the questions you had; as to why he never went cave-trekking again, Osborn only mentions it and doesn't give any clues; I suspect it's simply because Cope's attentions wavered, but there's no elaboration either way. As to the mentions of Marsh... they really can't be crammed in elsewhere, but I think it's still important to have them outside the Bone Wars section (because the Bone Wars really focuses on 1877-1892, although the wider feud lasted until the death of Cope.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, it looks like you got everything.
The only outstanding issue is the first point, but it's pretty minor soI'm switching to support. Nev1 (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, it looks like you got everything.
- Many thanks for the review. I believe I have addressed most of your points above, adding bits to clarify and whatnot. I've rearranged the European travels section to two paragraphs, hopefully the flow is more logical and clear now. I've also tried to elaborate on some of the questions you had; as to why he never went cave-trekking again, Osborn only mentions it and doesn't give any clues; I suspect it's simply because Cope's attentions wavered, but there's no elaboration either way. As to the mentions of Marsh... they really can't be crammed in elsewhere, but I think it's still important to have them outside the Bone Wars section (because the Bone Wars really focuses on 1877-1892, although the wider feud lasted until the death of Cope.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
What makes http://dml.cmnh.org/1994Oct/msg00196.html a reliable source?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replaced with citation to original AP story. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the Belladonna dab Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well-written, meets all the criteria, I have no issues that haven't already been resolved. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll do a check on 1b and 1c. Am wondering why the following sources are not mentioned in the article. Sasata (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jane P. Davidson. "Edward Drinker Cope, Professor Paleozoic and "Buffalo Land"". Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science (1903-), Vol. 106, No. 3/4 (Autumn, 2003), pp. 177-191
- Jane P. Davidson. "Bonehead Mistakes: The Background in Scientific Literature and Illustrations for Edward Drinker Cope's First Restoration of Elasmosaurus platyurus." Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Vol. 152, (Oct. 14, 2002), pp. 215-240
- Theodore Gill. "Edward Drinker Cope, Naturalist-A Chapter in the History of Science".The American Naturalist, Vol. 31, No. 370 (Oct., 1897), pp. 831-863
- Peter J. Bowler. "Edward Drinker Cope and the Changing Structure of Evolutionary Theory" Isis, Vol. 68, No. 2 (Jun., 1977), pp. 249-265
- Walter H. Wheeler. "The Uintatheres and the Cope-Marsh War". Science, New Series, Vol. 131, No. 3408 (Apr. 22, 1960), pp. 1171-1176
- Benjamin S. Creisler. "Why Monoclonius Cope Was Not Named for Its Horn: The Etymologies of Cope's Dinosaurs." Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Sep. 3, 1992), pp. 313-317
- Alfred S. Romer. "Cope versus Marsh Cope versus Marsh". Systematic Zoology, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Dec., 1964), pp. 201-207
- Edw. Anthony Spitzka. "A Study of the Brains of Six Eminent Scientists and Scholars Belonging to the American Anthropometric Society, together with a Description of the Skull of Professor E. D. Cope". Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, Vol. 21, No. 4 (1907), pp. 175-308
- "[Obituary: Edward Drinker Cope] [Obituary: Edward Drinker Cope]". The American Naturalist, Vol. 31, No. 365 (May, 1897), pp. 412-413
- "Edward Drinker Cope". The American Naturalist, Vol. 31, No. 365 (May, 1897), pp. 414-419
- Henry W. Fowler. "Special Anniversary Features: Cope in Retrospect". Copeia, Vol. 1963, No. 1 (Mar. 30, 1963), pp. 195-198
- Philip P. Calvert. "A Bust of the Late Professor E. D. Cope". Science, New Series, Vol. 51, No. 1315 (Mar. 12, 1920), pp. 264-265
- Henry F. Osborn. "Edward D. Cope". Science, New Series, Vol. 5, No. 123 (May 7, 1897), pp. 705-717
- Theo. Gill. "Edward Drinker Cope, Naturalist--A Chapter in the History of Science". Science, New Series, Vol. 6, No. 137 (Aug. 13, 1897), pp. 225-243
- I have not looked at all the sources you describe (The T.Gill cites are perhaps useful, I will have to check) but many are already incorporated by other sources--Davidson and Osborn's papers are part of their respective larger works, Spitzka is mentioned in Jaffe, et al. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I figured most of them would be incorporated in other works like you said, but the Davidson papers are published after the 1997 book you used in the article... perhaps she uncovered some other material, or has revised her interpretations of events? Sasata (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, I'll double check. I've added in a bit from Bowler, Romer and Fowler; I will take a look at Davidson and the others tomorrow or Monday (I've got a final school project that's diverting my time.) I will ping you when I've scraped the above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a tad from Gill (it also had a pic I've added in as well). The Davidson items are really tangental to Cope himself (the Buffalo Land one is about how some of Cope's research was used in a book and I don't think really fits the article.) Osborn's obit isn't really much different from his book in terms of any additional nuggets. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for checking out those sources, I'm content with regards to 1b and 1c now. Sometime later this week I'll actually read the article and put up a proper review. Sasata (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: Everything looks good to me (very good, actually; this is probably the best FAC I've ever reviewed as far as image description pages go). I'll note that File:Edward Drinker Cope’s study in 1897.jpg is listed as being in the public domain only by virtue of the Library of Congress asserting "No known restrictions on publication", and I've seen editors claim that that's not sufficient information. I disagree (especially given that the creator died in 1917), but am mentioning it here in case anybody else wants to take issue with it. Steve Smith (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, Jappa brought that up. I'm thinking to be safe, I'm ultimately going to remove it, but I'm just waiting to hear from the original uploader if he/she knows any additional info about publication. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: David, this looks very good. However, I made some adjustments
and have some additional questions.
1. Where is the first Bakker reference? It appears to be missing. I added Bakker et al. (1990), but your text refers to a second Bakker source. Is it the Bakker and Dodson interview?2. What is the "Elanliosaur" mentioned in the text? I've commented this out because I've never heard of this and it gets no Google hits outside of this article. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first Bakker ref is with Dodson. As for Elanliosaur, it's definitely what was written up in Osborn. Why it doesn't appear anywhere else is beyond me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a text error, as no other source anywhere (that I can see) supports this. I get nothing on the Paleobiology Database, nothing in my books, and nothing in Google. Also, the name itself is malformed and almost certainly should not be italicized ("-saur" endings are common names, not scientific names). I highly recommend removing this altogether. Even though the one source verifies it, nothing else does. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]- removed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was there a reason you ditched Elasmosaurus, too? Firsfron of Ronchester 02:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Oh, my mistake, for some reason I thought you had added that in as a possible alt. to the Elanliosaur bit, I've tweaked it now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 05:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing it. I have another observation, and you may want to kill me, but here goes. As we well know, and as you wrote above, Cope "discovered literally thousands of new species". However, the text itself only mentions five taxa: Amphibamus grandiceps, Monoclonius, Elasmosaurus platyurus, Laelaps, and Camarasaurus. Five out of thousands seems very paltry. What links here indicates that between 500 and 1,000 articles link to Cope, and many of these are species he worked on, discovered, or named. There's no mention in the article of the dinosaur genus Amphicoelias, possibly the largest dinosaur which ever lived, both discovered and named by Cope. There's no mention of Allosaurus amplexus, Coelophysis, or non-dinosaurian taxa like Edaphosaurus, Champsosaurus, Lystrosaurus, and Peltosaurus. While many of Cope's discoveries have since usually been "sunk in" to other names, these last four have not. Nor has Camarasaurus, possibly Cope's greatest contribution to the Dinosauria. But the text only discusses Camarasaurus in one sentence. Coelophysis gets no mention at all, despite being the type taxon of a well-known family of theropods. WP's article on the Bone Wars (a fine article you wrote!) is much clearer about Cope's discoveries. In this article, though, the reader is left to wonder what Cope discovered, because it's clear from the text that he was very prolific, but almost nothing he described gets any mention. I would like to see more detail on his discoveries, and I'd be glad to assist (starting tomorrow night), if you're amenable. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Of course. Mi artículo es su artículo, and all that :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to add a paragraph enumerating Cope's major taxa discoveries (with a sentence like "Cope described X in 18xx,[ref] Y in 18xy,[ref] and Z in 18xz.[ref]"), but then I realized you're using a different style of reference formatting than what I'm used to. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course. Mi artículo es su artículo, and all that :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, my mistake, for some reason I thought you had added that in as a possible alt. to the Elanliosaur bit, I've tweaked it now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 05:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- removed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ←Just add it in, and I'll worry about prettying it up and standardizing the citations. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've added a bit on Cope's publication of Amphicoelias, Lystrosaurus, Champsosaurus, Edaphosaurus and Coelophysis in two areas which appeared able to support the added text. I left out others, though, that just didn't fit where the text was going. The little I added, though, could help illustrate his discoveries to readers. Feel free to rework as needed. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Formatted your additions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After a few additional minor adjustments, I'm ready to Support this article's FAC. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Formatted your additions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Great job! --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional support: I was involved in peer reviewing this article and made many comments, much of which Dave has resolved. What is left would not significantly affect my decision to support this document, as the prose is good, the article comprehensive on Cope's life, and the sources are reliable. I originally pointed out in the review and agree with Nev1 that Marsh's feud with Cope could be better introduced than the sudden "Marsh's attempts to sully Cope's reputation ..."; however, it is not a sticking point. As mentioned, I am a bit more concerned over File:Edward Drinker Cope’s study in 1897.jpg (and this is where my conditional support comes in), but not opposing since Elcobbola and Steve Smith are not that concerned over it (it seems more likely it was unpublished until recently). So unless someone else points out that the photo has been published during 1923-1989 and is still copyrighted, I will support this article. On another note, would this alternate angle shot (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3b37400) be a better cluttered study photo? Jappalang (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the current image is better. While I like the greater prominence of the specimens and skulls on the cabinet, I think the other one is better in terms of overall composition (I'm not sure how easy it would be to reduce the white areas in the alternative image, or whether those areas are too blown out to be properly corrected in post. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, like I said, unless someone brings up evidence or convincing argument on why the study image is not public domain, my support stands. Jappalang (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments—parts are beautifully written, but there are many glitches, particularly after the lead. I started at "Support", then drew back to "Concerned".
- "rapidly published"—ok, but it has an odd feel. Was it the negotiations or the printing presses that were rapid? Was it just the rapid publications that were debated? (That is one implication of the wording.)
- Chain-like sentence structure: "His theories on the origin of mammalian molars and "Cope's Law", on the gradual enlargement of mammalian species, are among his theoretical contributions." The second "on" folds back into just Cope's law, or all of the preceding?
- "His notebook, including this page, survives and contains copious notes and drawings of his travels." Perhaps "His notebook survives, including this page, and contains copious notes and drawings of his travels."
- His mother died at the age of three?
- "maternal" rather than "motherly" is better, I suspect. "have had".
- "Alfred was also ..."—I know I'm an incorrigible "also" deletionist, but ... does it add anything here?
- Comma after "Fairfield" could go (personal view).
- acres convert to hectares, please. Thousands of square metres are very hard to visualise.
- "Exotic" gardens were "a natural landscape"? "Natural" occurs again a few seconds later; this is yet more evidence that we need a script/bot to flag close repetitions of non-grammatical words. I've asked at the bot page and have been ignored ... :-(
- The school was "the site" of much of the family's education? Bit odd. "... provided much of ..."?
- "costing Alfred $500 tuition each year,"—add "in".
- Old-fashioned to capitalise the initials of school subjects. I see "comparative anatomy" in full lower case below.
- Logic problem: "Edward's letters home requesting a larger allowance show he was able to manipulate his father"—only if his dad acquiesced.
- Remove "of time".
- "Despite complaints about his schooling, Cope returned to Westtown in 1855, accompanied by two of his sisters." Who was complaining? The parents (typical nowadays) or the boy? Please go through every sentence defensively: try to extract double meanings or the wrong meaning, and fix where you can. That is how I'm reading/analysing.
- "Biology began to interest him more"—more than his other subjects, or more than in the previous year? (See?)
- The bot that doesn't exist yet picked up "prestigious school" twice in 15 seconds' of reading.
- "Cope frequently obtained bad marks for quarrelsome and bad conduct." So if he'd tried harder at bad conduct they'd have given him an A for that subject? (Sorry, but I can't switch off my ambiguity antennae.) Also, "Cope" refers to the boy, but "Alfred" the father was also a Cope. I'd tend to use the boy's first name when in the vicinity of his dad.
- "wholesome" needs to be in quotes to show that it's not WP's judgement. Perhaps I think farming isn't wholesome, no matter how profitable.
- "Up till 1863"—"Until ...".
- "Though Alfred resisted his son's acceptance of a science career, he paid for his son's private studies."—Would "pursuit" be better?
- "scientific exploits"—bit pejorative, that second word?
- "He also had a job during this period recataloging"—During this period, he took a job recataloging ...".
- "over the next years he published almost solely on reptile and amphibians"—how many years?
Needs work from both the nominator and an independent party. I got down to the end of "Early life". Tony (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have addressed most of the above listed, and will try and go through the rest hunting for redundancies and such when possible. I'll see about getting an uninvolved person to look over it too. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- David, what's the latest status on this? Have you gotten the uninvolved person to look through and has Tony been asked to revisit? Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The people I've talked to have been busy, and weren't able to give me a definite time they'd be able to assist. I've gone through the article again myself and have asked Tony to take a look whenever he has the time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- David, what's the latest status on this? Have you gotten the uninvolved person to look through and has Tony been asked to revisit? Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spot-check
- "Due to his background in taxonomy and paleontology, Cope focused on evolution in changing structural terms, rather than Darwin's emphasis on geography and variation within populations." Keep the grammar parallel? "Due to his background in taxonomy and paleontology, Cope focused on evolution in terms of changing structure, rather than emphasising geography and variation within populations as Darwin had." Check please for content accuracy ... it looks better grammatically. Something had to be done.
- Is this grammatical? "His original view, described in the paper "On the Origin of Genera" (1868), held that while Darwin's natural selection may affect the preservation of superficial characteristics in organisms, but that natural selection alone could not explain the formation of genera."
- Nicer without the comma? ... through what Cope termed, "a continual crowding ...
- Strictly "In fewer than 40 years as a scientist".
- Minor issues: "Cope is today known as a herpetologist and paleontologist, but his contributions extended to ichthyology; he catalogued 300 species of fishes over three decades". Word order, sh .. sh.: "Although Cope is now known as ..., his ..., in which he catalogued 300 fish species over three decades". Was it exactly 300?
- Some of the pics were tiny. Why?
I didn't oppose, above. I still don't, but the prose needs to be tightened up in such FACs. It's been here far too long, David. Tony (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the above. As for image sizes, I've been leaving things at default in the hope that they'll be fine once the image thumb defaults get changed (whenever that will be.) As for how long this FAC has been open... I sure haven't asked for a stay of execution. It's up to them dastardly delegates to close, and lowly mortals such as me know not the hour and all that :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:20, 10 January 2010 [48].
- Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article because I believe it covers its subject fully and meets the standard required to be included amongst the set of featured. It is a companion to the featured articles City and South London Railway, Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway and Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway. DavidCane (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments 1b/c: Fifelfoo (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not reply here until now as I felt that the comments below adequately covered my concerns in such a self-evident manner that to note it would be superfluous. All my concerns have been adequately addressed. :) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for confirming. I didn't want to assume that everything was OK, if there was something I had missed. --DavidCane (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not reply here until now as I felt that the comments below adequately covered my concerns in such a self-evident manner that to note it would be superfluous. All my concerns have been adequately addressed. :) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am concerned about the status of Capital Transport as a vanity publisher, due to their website, their lack of an editorial or submissions policy, and Rose being acknowledged in World Cat as the publisher for "Rose, Douglas (1999). The London Underground, A Diagrammatic History. Douglas Rose/Capital Transport. ISBN 1-85414-219-4." The impact of sourcing an article so significantly from sources published by a vanity publisher would be to undermine its status in terms of 1b/c.
- Although most of the books in the references list are published by Capital Transport, the company is not a vanity publisher, but a small specialist publisher on transport subjects - particularly those in London. A number of the books used for the article are published in association with the London Transport Museum (Horne's The Bakerloo Line - An Illustrated History, Day and Reed's The Story of London's Underground and Connor's London's Disused Underground Stations) and they are all sold by the museum's shop and in larger bookshops with specialist transport sections (for example, Waterstone's in Piccadilly). I believe that it is reasonable to assume that the museum and Waterstone's would only be selling these titles if they were considered to be good quality works.--DavidCane (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am concerned about a source reliance stemming from Capital Transport publications separate to the status of the publisher. What other monographs of the tube system exist? Journal Articles from history of technology and science / engineering?
- I don't think the fact that they have the same publisher has any particular relevance to the coverage of the subject matter within the books themselves. There have been many books published on the London Underground - Wolmar lists nearly fifty which he used as source materials for his book which covers the whole system, including a couple of the others used directly here. The books used are all recent editions and are effectively a distillation of the primary and secondary sources available to the authors. With regards to technological/engineering issues, I have tried to avoid including much on these matters except in the construction section and have provided wiki-links to relevant articles on tunnelling shields, caissons, etc. which cover these subjects in more detail. --DavidCane (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am concerned that the extensive use of the London Gazette indicates that a High Quality Reliable Source may not have been used to establish the narrative / weighting of the article; and subsequently sections of the Gazette have been cherry picked to establish a historical narrative that may be substantially Original Research, ie "With the extension to Paddington still under construction, the LER published a bill in November 1911 for the continuation to Queen's Park.[80] => [80] ^ London Gazette: no. 28552, pp. 8615–8620, 21 November 1911. Retrieved on 2009-11-07." Some of these uses are clear, but in some the passing of an act is being used to imply that substantive things happened in the real world.
- In most cases the London Gazette references are used to provide a direct primary source link to the actual bill that Badsey Ellis has referred to in his book as he has generally referred to the actual primary documents themselves and describes the planned route and station locations in his narrative. In the specific example above, ref [80] is not provided to support the introductory "With the extension to Paddington still under construction," bit, just the date of the bill's introduction. The fact that the extension to Paddington was under construction at the time is covered by ref [76] and ref [55] in the last paragraph of the previous section which states that construction began in August 1911 and was completed with the opening of the station in December 1913. --DavidCane (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you could satisfy these concerns are groundless, it would be wonderful. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No dab links or dead external links. Double-check that the five galegroup Times links work (they require registration so I can't).
- Access to the Times links on infotrac is often available via membership of local public libraries in the UK.--DavidCane (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text
: The large images all have some, but the bottom navbox and the images that make up the diagram in section "Opening" don't have it. The diagram's images need alts because they aren't purely decorative and give more info on the represented stops.is vastly improved and looks good. (updated on 16:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC))- Not sure this is going to be possible without a complete rewrite of the BSicon templates which is unlikely to happen easily or soon. The diagram is a visual representation of what's in the text anyway and I am not sure that it would be very useful to an unsighted reader as I expect that a screen reader will read left to right across a row rather than up down. I will see if there is a way to make a screen reader skip this diagram. --DavidCane (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically possible, but in reality impractical. The map is created by WP:ROUTE which uses many icon images to comprise the whole map. Forcing alt description text into the diagram means that you need to input each desciption for each icon, in the case of Baker Street and Waterloo Railway, you'll have to repeat the same text >50 times. Ultimately the ineffectiveness to display a proper alt text from WP:ROUTE diagram shouldn't challenge the qualificaition of the article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, adding alt text is both possible and practical, and I've demonstrated this for the diagram in question; please see Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template #Alt text in route diagrams. This shouldn't require any change to Baker Street and Waterloo Railway or to {{BS&WR route map}}. Eubulides (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically possible, but in reality impractical. The map is created by WP:ROUTE which uses many icon images to comprise the whole map. Forcing alt description text into the diagram means that you need to input each desciption for each icon, in the case of Baker Street and Waterloo Railway, you'll have to repeat the same text >50 times. Ultimately the ineffectiveness to display a proper alt text from WP:ROUTE diagram shouldn't challenge the qualificaition of the article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've dug into the navbox to add alt text for the image there --DavidCane (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure this is going to be possible without a complete rewrite of the BSicon templates which is unlikely to happen easily or soon. The diagram is a visual representation of what's in the text anyway and I am not sure that it would be very useful to an unsighted reader as I expect that a screen reader will read left to right across a row rather than up down. I will see if there is a way to make a screen reader skip this diagram. --DavidCane (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Use a consistent style for ref dates. Compare e.g. refs 81 and 88. Consider using one format for all dates in citations.- I think 88 and 89 were different because they were copied over from one of the companion articles. Changed all retrieved dates to full UK style date.--DavidCane (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--an odd name 01:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have fixed many of the alt text issues noted in the previous comment by editing and adding alt text to {{Bakerloo line navbox}} and by adding alt text to {{Rail-interchange}}. However, the diagram at the start of the Opening section still generates dozens of images that lack alt text. This diagram is generated by {{BS&WR route map}}, which uses {{BS3}}, which in turn uses {{BS-overlap}} to generate the problematic images. {{BS-overlap}} uses {{Superimpose}} to generate the image, but neglects to pass the
|base_alt=
parameter to {{Superimpose}} so the images are displayed without alt text. Can you please fix this? {{BS-overlap}} is undocumented, and {{BS3}}'s documentation is quite cryptic, so I'm reluctant to charge in and fix this stuff myself. Eubulides (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- It looks like the diagram's alt text will be fixed at the template level; see Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template #Alt text in route diagrams. Eubulides (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
This ref http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clive.billson/tubemaps/1949.html ... is it out of copyright? In other words, are we linking to a copyright violation here?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead page for the site here states that the images are used with permission of the London Transport Museum.
- As the map was produced for the London Transport Executive, which was in public ownership as part of the nationalised British Transport Commission, it is arguable that the image would be covered by Crown Copyright much as an Ordnance Survey Map would be. For a map published in 1949, this would have expired in 1999.--DavidCane (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. (1) Text on maps unreadable. (2) Images mostly tiny. I've boosted the size of some of the pics, so you may wish to audit the placement. (3) The prose could do with an independent copy-edit—not a long job, though.
- The maps: I think you created them, so can you massively increase the size of the text? The year range should have an unspaced en dash in the first one (see MOSDASH). I've boosted the px size of the Baker Street excerpt below, but the text is still too small, and most of the image is just white space. Same for the others. I'm not sure a real photo (Oxford Circus station? The temporary pier?) wouldn't be better in the lead, with the current lead map further down, centred, and larger (i.e., not squeezing text at all—even now, it squeezes). The 1906 Gate pic is tiny AND squeezes text (a breach of MoS).
- I will see what I can do about the sizes of the maps and the text they contain. I want to keep the text size in the route progression maps consistent from one to another so that the scale can be maintained.
- I was trying not to force the image sizes, but will be happy to make the gate stock one bigger. If it is moved after the text in the section with a {{clearleft}} afterwards, I think it will stop the pinching.
- I would like to keep the main map at the top because it gives more of a sense of the article than the pier and the Oxford tube station pictures that only relate to a small aspect of the story. --DavidCane (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Example of copy-editing needed, in the lead: "fraud" could be "fraudulent behaviour" ... unsure. "It" refers to Whitaker or LGFC or BS? "connected with" would avoid "to" x 3. Remove "covering"? "In 1933, it and the rest ..."—this is awkward.
- I think fraud is more appropriate; "fraudulent behaviour" seems a bit equivocal
- "It" is the BS&WR.
- Think I've got all the rest.
- Iridescent provided some comments before it came to FAC. Thanks. --DavidCane (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my eyesight is pretty good, and I have great difficulty reading the text for the station names. There's a lot of white space, so why can't the font-size be bigger? "1906–33" or "1906–1933", with unspaced en dash, not spaced hyphen. Hands up anyone here who can make out a single word in the key. What is the point? I suspect the point is that you're expected to click to get full res (it's rather too full, actually); this is hard for people with slow connections, and inconvenient for everyone. The alt text could be a little more descriptive. The caption might just say "Map of the Baker Street & Waterloo Railway route and its extension over nearly three decades". But being able to read the key is critical to the colour and line coding on the map; the key should be a rectangle, tallish, with font-size twice the current. If it can't fit along the left side, put it in the sea of white on the right? Tony (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Text in all maps has now been increased by 63%. How does that look? --DavidCane (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Cough) David, you've reverted back to the West Coast Main Line and not the DC Line... – iridescent 02:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just testing! I've got too many versions on my hard drive and used the wrong one. Now fixed.--DavidCane (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by Support assuming the issue regarding the maps is sorted out to everyone's satisfaction. As David says above,my concerns regarding this were all resolved here. – iridescent 2 17:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I read this ages ago, then forgot about it, Reread today, happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toSupport: I think the maps are now fine, and so is the prose. I continue to be impressed by the extent of industry and research which is behind these railway articles,and look forward to giving this latest one my full support. The issue holding me back at the moment is that of the PD status of three of the images. I am not an expert image reviewer, my comments being based on my understanding of advice I have received in the past. I hope an expert will come soon and clear the matter up:-- Whittaker Wright: when was this image first published? My understanding is that the 70-year rule applies to unpublished works, and if the image was not published before 1923 then it may not be PD in the USA.
- The Whitaker Wright image is by Harry Furniss who died in 1925. Wright killed himself in 1904 following the famous trial. The Badsey-Ellis book, from which the image was scanned, ascribes the source to the National Portrait Gallery. The NPG page for the image (which I couldn't find when I made the scan) indicates that it is from a set titled "Prominent men: drawings by Harry Furniss, circa 1880-1910". It therefore seems likely that it was published before Wright's death and no later than 1910. --DavidCane (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Prominent men: drawings by Harry Furniss, circa 1880-1910" is not a publication but a database created by the NPG for Furniss's sketches. This image is likely a draft of Furniss's caricatures. I would advise not using it because of the 20-year publication rights (of previously unpublished works) in the UK that comes into effect even if the image would be PD due to 70-year-pma. Use the finished product in Harry Furniss at Home (Google or Internet Archive), which is undeniably {{PD-1923}} (for US) and commons:Template:PD-UK-known (for UK). Jappalang (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent, Thanks for finding that. I will upload the original 3 caricature image from the Harry Furniss at Home book and a crop of just whitaker to replace the existing image.--DavidCane (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Prominent men: drawings by Harry Furniss, circa 1880-1910" is not a publication but a database created by the NPG for Furniss's sketches. This image is likely a draft of Furniss's caricatures. I would advise not using it because of the 20-year publication rights (of previously unpublished works) in the UK that comes into effect even if the image would be PD due to 70-year-pma. Use the finished product in Harry Furniss at Home (Google or Internet Archive), which is undeniably {{PD-1923}} (for US) and commons:Template:PD-UK-known (for UK). Jappalang (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Whitaker Wright image is by Harry Furniss who died in 1925. Wright killed himself in 1904 following the famous trial. The Badsey-Ellis book, from which the image was scanned, ascribes the source to the National Portrait Gallery. The NPG page for the image (which I couldn't find when I made the scan) indicates that it is from a set titled "Prominent men: drawings by Harry Furniss, circa 1880-1910". It therefore seems likely that it was published before Wright's death and no later than 1910. --DavidCane (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jetty picture: Similar problem - when was it first published? Additionally, you are claiming that the author has been dead for 70+ years, but we can't assume this since we don't know who he/she was. A photographer aged 25 in 1896 would only have been 69 in 1940.
- I'm pretty sure that I uploaded the image with the same copyright tag as the gate stock image below, e.g. {{tl:PD-UK}}, but as it has been moved to commons, I cannot check this. Mike Horne's book gives no source information, so apart from the approximate date it is impossible to identify any other information on its origin or if it was published at the time. I'm quite happy to remove it if that is thought to be the solution.--DavidCane (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Brian is correct here. You need to know who is the author and be verifiably certain he is dead beyond 70 years to use any 70-year-pma tag. Jappalang (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll remove it from the article.--DavidCane (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Brian is correct here. You need to know who is the author and be verifiably certain he is dead beyond 70 years to use any 70-year-pma tag. Jappalang (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure that I uploaded the image with the same copyright tag as the gate stock image below, e.g. {{tl:PD-UK}}, but as it has been moved to commons, I cannot check this. Mike Horne's book gives no source information, so apart from the approximate date it is impossible to identify any other information on its origin or if it was published at the time. I'm quite happy to remove it if that is thought to be the solution.--DavidCane (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gates Stock: I am not sure that PD in the USA is covered by the existing licence information.
- Mike Horne's book from which this was scanned has no source information for the image. The uploaded version does not appear in the London Transport Museum photographic archive, though this untouched version appears to be the original from which it was created. It is ascribed to an unknown photographer and dated 1906. The retouching of the rivets and the painting out of the background is indicative that it was prepared for publication, probably for the Bakerloo line's opening in 1906. If it was published in 1906, it would be in the public domain now --DavidCane (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The image used in this article is not a retouched version of the London Transport Museum photographic archive link provided—observe the differences in positioning of the car's windows in the background, which implies the images were taken at different distances. It would be needed to find out from whom or where did Mike Horne get his photos from, and whether they fall into the public domain or was he given permission/license to publish them. Jappalang (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Windows are slightly different as if the photographer took two shots from slightly different positions. I will remove from article. --DavidCane (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The image used in this article is not a retouched version of the London Transport Museum photographic archive link provided—observe the differences in positioning of the car's windows in the background, which implies the images were taken at different distances. It would be needed to find out from whom or where did Mike Horne get his photos from, and whether they fall into the public domain or was he given permission/license to publish them. Jappalang (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike Horne's book from which this was scanned has no source information for the image. The uploaded version does not appear in the London Transport Museum photographic archive, though this untouched version appears to be the original from which it was created. It is ascribed to an unknown photographer and dated 1906. The retouching of the rivets and the painting out of the background is indicative that it was prepared for publication, probably for the Bakerloo line's opening in 1906. If it was published in 1906, it would be in the public domain now --DavidCane (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whittaker Wright: when was this image first published? My understanding is that the 70-year rule applies to unpublished works, and if the image was not published before 1923 then it may not be PD in the USA.
- I await the verdict of one better informed than me. User:Awadewit might be persuaded to take a look. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did make a request that Awadewit have a look at these, but she has declined as she is not reviewing images at the moment. Hopefully, my answers above can help someone else make a decision on this matter.--DavidCane (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Jappalang is extremely knowledgeable on images, and usually very helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jappalang has already commented above.--DavidCane (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I missed his comments which, together with your responses, remove my concerns about images. I have moved to full support - sorry it's taken so long but I've been busy, been away blah blah blah... Brianboulton (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jappalang has already commented above.--DavidCane (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Jappalang is extremely knowledgeable on images, and usually very helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did make a request that Awadewit have a look at these, but she has declined as she is not reviewing images at the moment. Hopefully, my answers above can help someone else make a decision on this matter.--DavidCane (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments on your Images (just to annoy you!!) I was ready through the article and it's all very good, but going through the images it can get a bit confusing as to what the new stations that were rejected/accepted were—It involves a lot of scrolling back and forth between previous sections and the current section. Would it be possible (if you don't have a problem with it) for the images to contain some easy to recognise distinction? maybe colour the station's red for rejected and green for accepted from the previous image in the article. So the second image would have Marylebone in green (or whatever) and the third image would have Hampstead Road and Euston and St George's Circus through Old Kent Road as red (or whatever). Or maybe you could have the current route slightly faded or some other way of distinction. Just my AUD$0.02 and if you think I'm a nutter then so be it! Sanguis Sanies (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the images as supplementary to the text, which carries the detail of how the routes developed, and would prefer to keep them as simple as possible. Adding different colours or tones to the images would require an explanatory key that would, of necessity require the image dimensions boxes to be enlarged, potentially crowding the space on the page. --DavidCane (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Support Sanguis Sanies (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the images as supplementary to the text, which carries the detail of how the routes developed, and would prefer to keep them as simple as possible. Adding different colours or tones to the images would require an explanatory key that would, of necessity require the image dimensions boxes to be enlarged, potentially crowding the space on the page. --DavidCane (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:58, 2 January 2010 [49].
- Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC), Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it's a good read that meets the criteria. User:Ruhrfisch, who did much of the photography and all of the map-making for the article, has kindly agreed to co-nominate. Lock Haven is a small university town that grew up along the West Branch Canal of the Pennsylvania Canal system in the early 19th century. Until William Penn's original woods were mostly felled, the town thrived on timber. In the 1930s, the town became home to Piper Aircraft and its famous Cub. In the 1970s, flooding from the remnants of Hurricane Agnes put a big damper on the airplane factory and much else in town. Beneath part of the city lie artifacts from other cultures dating back more than 8,000 years.
The article has been peer reviewed by User:Brianboulton, User:Niagara, User:Ruhrfisch, User:Doncram, and, on the article's talk page, User:Dincher. In addition, User:Ealdgyth ran a preliminary review of the sources. Finetooth (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've had my eye on this article for some time and am very pleased with the progress. All of my issues were addressed and the article has only improved during the PR process. Very nicely done. Dincher (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your kind words and support as well as your peer review and other help with this article over the past two years. Finetooth (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: A carefully prepared article that was very thoroughly peer reviewed by several editors; I was one of them, and every one of my points was addressed fully. The article is pleasant to read, informative, and beautifully presented – the images are a treat. Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your kind words and support. Your review was especially thorough and helpful. Finetooth (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My thanks to both reviewers as well - you have helped greatly in improving this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your kind words and support. Your review was especially thorough and helpful. Finetooth (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technical stuff
- No dabs or dead external links, and alt text looks good (see Talk:Lock Haven, Pennsylvania#Lock Haven review). Some alts are fairly long, but they all look good and appropriate (map alts describe the essence instead of the map, for example).
- Dates are Month Day, Year throughout—good.
- For images used on multiple pages with non-free rationales, try {{Non-free image data}} and {{Non-free image rationale}} to shorten the File pages. I've changed one of the images to use these; you do it for any others.
- Nice carillon.
--an odd name 10:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for checking these and for the tip on non-free image templates (only one non-free image is used in this article). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks from me too. I did not know about the templates either. Finetooth (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for checking these and for the tip on non-free image templates (only one non-free image is used in this article). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are some prose issues. For instance (but not limited to):
** "The earliest settlers in Pennsylvania arrived from Asia between 12000 BCE and 8000 BCE, the Paleo-Indian Period, when the glaciers of the Pleistocene Ice Age were receding." - Paleo-Indian Period shouldn't be surrounded by commas.
- To make this more direct, I moved "Paleo-Indian Period" to the next sentence and wikilinked it to say: "Fluted point spearheads from this era, known as the Paleo-Indian Period, have been found in most parts of the state. Finetooth (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fluted point spearheads are not known as the Paleo-Indian Period. How about "Fluted point spearheads from the Paleo-Indian Period..."? Parrot of Doom 19:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer either of my two constructions, both of which seem clear to me. The time span, the era, and the period all refer to the same thing. If we remove "era" from the fluted-point sentence, this connection will be lost, and it might appear that Paleo-Indian Period and the 4,000-year span were not the same. Finetooth (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok that's fine with me, however, consider using History of Mesoamerica (Paleo-Indian) as a link instead. Parrot of Doom 18:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but Mesoamerica is a long way south of what became Pennsylvania, that is not the correct link. Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah ok, I'm rather ignorant of US geography, lol :) Parrot of Doom 21:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but Mesoamerica is a long way south of what became Pennsylvania, that is not the correct link. Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok that's fine with me, however, consider using History of Mesoamerica (Paleo-Indian) as a link instead. Parrot of Doom 18:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer either of my two constructions, both of which seem clear to me. The time span, the era, and the period all refer to the same thing. If we remove "era" from the fluted-point sentence, this connection will be lost, and it might appear that Paleo-Indian Period and the 4,000-year span were not the same. Finetooth (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fluted point spearheads are not known as the Paleo-Indian Period. How about "Fluted point spearheads from the Paleo-Indian Period..."? Parrot of Doom 19:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To make this more direct, I moved "Paleo-Indian Period" to the next sentence and wikilinked it to say: "Fluted point spearheads from this era, known as the Paleo-Indian Period, have been found in most parts of the state. Finetooth (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"First contact with Europeans occurred in Pennsylvania between 1500 and 1600 CE." - European first contact with whom?
- I changed this sentence to begin, "The native peoples' first contact... ". Finetooth (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but who are the native people? Is there an article, or do they have a name? Parrot of Doom 19:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference is for the whole state. The Susquehannocks were the tribe in the Lock Haven area at the time of first contact - see below polease. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it make sense to add a sentence at the end of this paragraph that said something like "The Susquehannocks were the earliest recorded inhabitants of the Susquehanna River valley and Lock Haven area; disease and warfare wiped them out as a tribe by 1675." Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd still prefer a noun or link just to identify those 'native peoples'. They must have been called something. Parrot of Doom 18:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Parrot of Doom, I don't think anyone can say for sure when the absolute first contact occurred. Miller and Pencak in Pennsylvania: a History of the Commonwealth here (p. 34) say, "When native Pennsylvanians first laid eyes on Europeans is unclear." The British explorer John Smith met a party of Susquehannocks from Pennsylvania in 1608, but that was not the first contact, which might have occurred between any two people (one Indian and one European) who encountered one another in this wild frontier place. The first encounter could easily have been informal, accidental, and unrecorded. Finetooth (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Parrot of Doom, there were at least four tribes in what is now Pennsylvania at the rough time of first contact: the Lenape along the Delaware River in the east (maybe 1/6 of the state), the Susquehannocks in the Susquehanna River valley (maybe 1/2 the state), the Eries along Lake Erie in the northwest, and tribe(s) we do not even know the names of along the Allegheny River/Monongahela River/Ohio River basins in the west (about 1/3 of the state). Plus the Iroquois would cross the state going from New York in the north to fight in the Carolinas to the south, the Susquehannocks were in wars with tribes to the south and north, etc. In short, not only do we not know when the first encounter was or who it was with, we also don't even know the names of all the tribes in the state then (even with the Susquehannocks we do not know what they called themselves, only what others called them). I hope this helps clarify the difficulty in answering your request. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case a short footnote to explain this would be welcomed. Parrot of Doom 11:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnote added. Finetooth (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case a short footnote to explain this would be welcomed. Parrot of Doom 11:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Parrot of Doom, there were at least four tribes in what is now Pennsylvania at the rough time of first contact: the Lenape along the Delaware River in the east (maybe 1/6 of the state), the Susquehannocks in the Susquehanna River valley (maybe 1/2 the state), the Eries along Lake Erie in the northwest, and tribe(s) we do not even know the names of along the Allegheny River/Monongahela River/Ohio River basins in the west (about 1/3 of the state). Plus the Iroquois would cross the state going from New York in the north to fight in the Carolinas to the south, the Susquehannocks were in wars with tribes to the south and north, etc. In short, not only do we not know when the first encounter was or who it was with, we also don't even know the names of all the tribes in the state then (even with the Susquehannocks we do not know what they called themselves, only what others called them). I hope this helps clarify the difficulty in answering your request. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Parrot of Doom, I don't think anyone can say for sure when the absolute first contact occurred. Miller and Pencak in Pennsylvania: a History of the Commonwealth here (p. 34) say, "When native Pennsylvanians first laid eyes on Europeans is unclear." The British explorer John Smith met a party of Susquehannocks from Pennsylvania in 1608, but that was not the first contact, which might have occurred between any two people (one Indian and one European) who encountered one another in this wild frontier place. The first encounter could easily have been informal, accidental, and unrecorded. Finetooth (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference is for the whole state. The Susquehannocks were the tribe in the Lock Haven area at the time of first contact - see below polease. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but who are the native people? Is there an article, or do they have a name? Parrot of Doom 19:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed this sentence to begin, "The native peoples' first contact... ". Finetooth (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
** "In the early 18th century, the Six Nations of the Iroquois, headquartered in New York, ruled the Indian tribes of Pennsylvania, including those who lived near what would become Lock Haven." - what are Indians?
- To clarify, I linked "Indians" to Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Finetooth (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Parrot of Doom, is your problem with the word "Indians" here and in "Indian paths/trails"? If so is there another term you'd prefer? Would Native Americans in the United States be a better link. perhaps piped as "Native Americans"? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't particularly have a problem with Indian over Native American, whatever is most common in the US is fine with me, but it could be confusing for people who haven't heard of these people referred to as Indians, before now. To most people, I would imagine that Indians reside in India. Parrot of Doom 22:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the link and added "Native American" in parentheses after "Indian" to eliminate confusion with the Indians of India. Finetooth (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good for me. Is Indian how North Americans describe these people? I'm from the UK, over here we'd call them Native Americans, or (slang) Red Indians. Parrot of Doom 18:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Native Americans is the politically correct term. Indians is the more common term. My wife fits into this group and she says that she's an Indian. Dincher (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine with me, so long as most people are easily able to understand exactly who is being talked about. Parrot of Doom 21:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Native Americans is the politically correct term. Indians is the more common term. My wife fits into this group and she says that she's an Indian. Dincher (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good for me. Is Indian how North Americans describe these people? I'm from the UK, over here we'd call them Native Americans, or (slang) Red Indians. Parrot of Doom 18:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the link and added "Native American" in parentheses after "Indian" to eliminate confusion with the Indians of India. Finetooth (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't particularly have a problem with Indian over Native American, whatever is most common in the US is fine with me, but it could be confusing for people who haven't heard of these people referred to as Indians, before now. To most people, I would imagine that Indians reside in India. Parrot of Doom 22:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Parrot of Doom, is your problem with the word "Indians" here and in "Indian paths/trails"? If so is there another term you'd prefer? Would Native Americans in the United States be a better link. perhaps piped as "Native Americans"? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, I linked "Indians" to Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Finetooth (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
** "Four Indian paths, the Great Island Path, the Great Shamokin Path, the Bald Eagle Creek Path, and the Sinnemahoning Path, crossed the island, and a fifth, Logan's Path, met Bald Eagle Creek Path a few miles upstream near the mouth of Fishing Creek." - what is an Indian path?
- I altered the sentence to start, "Four Indian trails... ". Finetooth (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
** "During the French and Indian War (1754–63), colonial militiamen on the Kittanning Expedition destroyed Indian property on the Great Island and along the West Branch. By 1763, the Indians had abandoned their island villages and other villages in the area" - where did they go? What happened to them? They've been there for thousands of years, more detail is required.
- It is not simple to identify one tribe. The earliest recorded inhabitants of the West Branch Susquehanna River valley were the Susquehannocks, but they were wiped out by disease and warfare with the Iroquois and the few members left moved west or were assimiliated into other tribes by 1675. After that the Iroquois, who were the nominal rulers of the land but mostly lived in New York to the north, invited tribes displaced by European settlers to move into the region. These included the Lenape (Delaware), Shawnee, and others. They moved west into the Ohio River valley. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, if there isn't room in the prose to describe this adequately, consider writing it as a footnote. I'll leave that to you, if you want to or not. See Dick Turpin for examples of how to insert footnotes into an article. Parrot of Doom 18:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not simple to identify one tribe. The earliest recorded inhabitants of the West Branch Susquehanna River valley were the Susquehannocks, but they were wiped out by disease and warfare with the Iroquois and the few members left moved west or were assimiliated into other tribes by 1675. After that the Iroquois, who were the nominal rulers of the land but mostly lived in New York to the north, invited tribes displaced by European settlers to move into the region. These included the Lenape (Delaware), Shawnee, and others. They moved west into the Ohio River valley. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now added a note (citation 8) that's almost identical to User:Ruhrfisch's explanation above and sourced it to Indian Paths of Pennsylvania. Finetooth (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"However, white settlers continued to appropriate land, including land in and near the future site of Lock Haven" - repetition
- Changed the second use of "land" to "tracts". Finetooth (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Cleary Campbell, the first white settler in the area, built a log cabin in 1769 near the present site of Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania, and by 1773 William Reed had built a cabin surrounded by a stockade and called it Reed's Fort" - reads as though 1769 is a place, not a date, especially as the latter part of the sentence puts the date first. We know Campbell is the first settler, but who or what is William Reed?
- Moved "In 1769" to the beginning of the sentence. Added "another settler" to clarify what William Reed refers to. Finetooth (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In response to settler incursions, and encouraged by the British after the start of the American Revolution (1775–83), Indians attacked colonists and their settlements along the West Branch. " - was the start of the American Revolution really eight years long?
- No. Those are the dates of the Revolution. I altered the sentence to say "during the American Revolution (1775–83)". Finetooth (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Hundreds of people fled along the river to Fort Augusta, about 50 miles (80 km) from Fort Reed, and some did not return for five years." - consider a semicolon instead of 'and'
- Yes, it's a bit more striking with the semicolon. I adopted your suggestion. Finetooth (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The second Treaty of Fort Stanwix, between the Iroquois and the United States" - what branch of the United States? Presumably the government?
- Yes. I believe it's customary to simply name the countries involved in treaties. That the governments of those countries are doing the negotiating is understood. Finetooth (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, is it correct to use Iroquois here, or is there a term that describes their nation, or governance? Parrot of Doom 19:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In this period, it was customary to use "United States" as a group — i.e. "the states that are united" — so "United States" was always the government. Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Iroquois" in the second-treaty sentence echoes the more elaborate "Six Nations of the Iroquois" of the sentence that opens the 18th century subsection of the article. The link to Iroquois in that first sentence leads to a more complete explanation of which tribes (nations) joined as one and why, but these details have little bearing on events in Lock Haven. The tribal confederacy (the Six Nations of the Iroquois) acted as a government in these treaty negotiations. Parrot of Doom, would it help to add "tribal confederacy" to the first sentence? Finetooth (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now added "tribal confederacy" to the sentence . Finetooth (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This language is fairly standard, for example Paul A. W. Wallace's book Indians in Pennsylvania, page 165, says "After the Revolutionary War, the United States made peace of a kind with the Indians in a series of treaties: in 1784 at Fort Stanwix with the Iroquois;..." Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. I believe it's customary to simply name the countries involved in treaties. That the governments of those countries are doing the negotiating is understood. Finetooth (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"to the state in 1784" - consider moving the year to a point earlier in the sentence.
- Moved the date to the beginning of the sentence. Finetooth (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check back with more, if required. Parrot of Doom 17:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your suggestions, most of which I have adopted, and a few of which I or User:Ruhrfisch have replied to above. Any other suggestions are welcome. Finetooth (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments Everything fine. RB88 (T) 18:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for checking these. Finetooth (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I've watched this grow and it meets all crtieria. Great job :D - Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 04:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your kind words and supprt, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you from these quarters as well. Finetooth (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - This is my first shot an image reviewing, so please do bear with me. :)- File:Lock Haven University Carillon.jpg - This might be considered artwork rather than a practical building. Second opinion appreciated if possible.
- A Carillon is a musical instrument (albeit not a very portable or common one). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure if this is applicable, but see Commons:Deletion requests/File:BP Bridge facing NW.jpg is about an image of an artistic looking building that was kept as architecture. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It really depends on whether the structure's design is for utilarian purposes or has been artistically intended (visually). Seeing the carillons displayed in their article, it seems the Lock Haven's Carillon is a fairly standard non-descript design, and hence not really intended as an art piece but a structure to house the bells (which are also not uniquely designed). Jappalang (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, OK; thanks for the explanation. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It really depends on whether the structure's design is for utilarian purposes or has been artistically intended (visually). Seeing the carillons displayed in their article, it seems the Lock Haven's Carillon is a fairly standard non-descript design, and hence not really intended as an art piece but a structure to house the bells (which are also not uniquely designed). Jappalang (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure if this is applicable, but see Commons:Deletion requests/File:BP Bridge facing NW.jpg is about an image of an artistic looking building that was kept as architecture. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A Carillon is a musical instrument (albeit not a very portable or common one). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Piper Aviation Museum.jpg - Much of the image is overblown. Could this be adjusted for contrast or brightness?
- Thanks, I cropped it and adjusted the levels with Paint.NET. The sky is white from fog as well as the sun burning through the fog. Is this better? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks much better - thanks! –Juliancolton | Talk 14:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I cropped it and adjusted the levels with Paint.NET. The sky is white from fog as well as the sun burning through the fog. Is this better? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have concerns about File:Pine Creek Log Raft.jpg. While it's an interesting image for sure, I'm not sure it does much to significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic at hand (a raft).
- Thanks for reviewing the images, Julian. It's not easy to sort out all of these complications, and the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable often seem unclear to me. In defense of the fair-use claim, I'd say that while log rafts of this sort might be familiar to a North American audience, they might not be to a global audience. The image therefore adds information necessary to the understanding of the text and can't be replaced by words alone. Do you think that argument is sufficient to save the image? Finetooth (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not even sure that such a log raft would be that familiar to most younger people anymore - they just don't grow trees this big or make rafts like this anymore. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am in favor of keeping the pic in the article. The size of the raft and the steering device is amazing. Dincher (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am with Julian here. For one, rafts are pretty common around the world; I see Asians with bamboo (and thick stick) rafts, so log rafts are not so hard to be conceived even by Asians. Although it is said that this image's raft is unique in that it uses "big" logs, there is nothing in the photo to help visualize that sense of scale. Without knowledge of the logs' size, it seems a fairly ordinary crude made log raft. This image would have more sense of fair use in Pennsylvania's logging-specific articles than about the place Lock Haven. Jappalang (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I have been BOLD and removed the image, replacing it with the one image the City of Lock Haven uses on its official history web page, also of a log raft, but this time the raft is on the West Branch Susquehanna River going under the old bridge in Lock Haven itself. The image does not have any source or date information - the raft means it has to be 19th or very early 20th century. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good, thanks for taking care of that.. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I have been BOLD and removed the image, replacing it with the one image the City of Lock Haven uses on its official history web page, also of a log raft, but this time the raft is on the West Branch Susquehanna River going under the old bridge in Lock Haven itself. The image does not have any source or date information - the raft means it has to be 19th or very early 20th century. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am with Julian here. For one, rafts are pretty common around the world; I see Asians with bamboo (and thick stick) rafts, so log rafts are not so hard to be conceived even by Asians. Although it is said that this image's raft is unique in that it uses "big" logs, there is nothing in the photo to help visualize that sense of scale. Without knowledge of the logs' size, it seems a fairly ordinary crude made log raft. This image would have more sense of fair use in Pennsylvania's logging-specific articles than about the place Lock Haven. Jappalang (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am in favor of keeping the pic in the article. The size of the raft and the steering device is amazing. Dincher (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not even sure that such a log raft would be that familiar to most younger people anymore - they just don't grow trees this big or make rafts like this anymore. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reviewing the images, Julian. It's not easy to sort out all of these complications, and the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable often seem unclear to me. In defense of the fair-use claim, I'd say that while log rafts of this sort might be familiar to a North American audience, they might not be to a global audience. The image therefore adds information necessary to the understanding of the text and can't be replaced by words alone. Do you think that argument is sufficient to save the image? Finetooth (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything else appears alright.
Best, –Juliancolton | Talk 04:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Seems to have been worked out. Sorry for the wait. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks from me too, and thanks to Jappalang as well. Finetooth (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:58, 2 January 2010 [50].
- Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it now meets the criteria. Article on an Australian veteran of both World Wars, who was awarded the Victoria Cross in the First and became a prisoner of war to the Japanese in the Second. The article has been passed as both a Good article, and A-Class by WikiProject Military history. Ian Rose was kind enough to preform a few prose tweaks to the article, and EyeSerene a thorough copyedit of which I am immensly grateful. Any and all comments welcome! Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technical comments by an odd name
- No dabs or dead externals (link checker warns about two links, but they're fine).
- For some reason, the tool just doesn't like links from those sites, even though they work. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text looks good
, except...Is "surrounded by a boarder" correct, or was "border" intended?- Yep; typo. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if the "Allegiance" in the infobox used {{flag}} instead of {{flagicon}}, and if {{flag}} had customizable text. See, right now those who can't see the flag will read "Australia Commonwealth of Australia", when it should be just "Commonwealth of Australia" (the text only, after an unlinked flag without an alt). {{flag}} would do the trick if the text could be changed to "Commonwealth of Australia".Pointing out Peeler's "large ears" doesn't seem right for a man who won the Victoria Cross (even if he's no longer with us). They don't look that big to me (but it may just be the image size).- They do look quite sizable to me in the images, especially the first ... Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since we already know how Peeler looks by the second (or third, or fourth...) image, some of them could probably be made brief by assuming context and calling the man Peeler.- Well, he is identified in the actual image captions and it is easier to describe what he is wearing or such in the others so I don't see much of a problem with it. Also, they way I read that quideline, it seems to be against assuming context. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dates throughout are consistent Day Month Year. Does the unreferenced external link at the bottom need that access date?- It's kind of a habit I picked up on the advice of another editor. I suppose it doesn't really need it, but if the link goes dead it may be helpful in retrevial. *Shrugs* Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had to read Army Gas School to get the significance of "On 22 June 1918, Peeler was posted to the Corps Gas School for eight days." I thought it involved cars or petrol! Silly me. :(
--an odd name 10:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for the review. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No prob. --an odd name 10:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments Everything fine. RB88 (T) 23:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "dispatching several other German soldiers and emerging unscathed". Do you have to use the word "dispatch" when referring to killing people. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Fixed. EyeSerenetalk 09:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for tweaking that, Eye, and pointing it out MisterBee. :) I was a little concerned about the word, as it is somewhat crude and insensitive in such a context. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Fixed. EyeSerenetalk 09:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: A most engaging article which I enjoyed very much. I have a few nitpicks:-
- Why the quotes around "in the face of the enemy"? It's not a quoted phrase as far as I know; the official citation refers to "most conspicuous bravery, or some daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice, or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy." (see here. I would simply remove the quotes, no need to expand the text.
- This is a rather standard snippet in several Victoria Cross related subjects, and is a habit I have acquired. I think the distinction comes from one of the warrants relating to the VC, and is more to distinguish between it and the George Cross, which is awarded for great gallantry not in the face of the enemy. I will leave them at the moment, but have no strong feelings either way and am willing to remove the quotation marks. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "November" in second lead paragraph should have a year: "November 1816"
- I don't think this is really necessary, as just before this the year of 1916 is present, and just after June 1917 is mentioned, so it would just be repeating the year of 1916 it occured which I think is a little obvious. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Victoria Cross section): Punctuation quibble; mdashes are a rather violent way of inserting an interjection into a sentence. I don't think they are really justified in "a group of 24 men—including Peeler—from the 3rd Pioneer Battalion", and advise their replacement with humble commas.
- There may be a few more minor points to pick up on, but no serious or obvious issues. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for the review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why the quotes around "in the face of the enemy"? It's not a quoted phrase as far as I know; the official citation refers to "most conspicuous bravery, or some daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice, or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy." (see here. I would simply remove the quotes, no need to expand the text.
- Support: Well done article!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A pleasure to read. Well done. ceranthor 20:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On 10 July 1907, he wed Kathleen Emma Hewitt;[1] the couple would produce five children.[2] - erm, produce?
- I originally had "the couple would have five children" but it got tweaked to "produce". Changed back now, though. :) Thanks very much for the review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: All images verifiably in public domain. Taken before 1946, their copyrights would not be renewed by the URAA. Furthermore, possible publishing of these photos during 1923–89 are in Australian books that never registered copyrights in the US; hence, it is very unlikely these photos of Peeler are ever copyrighted in the US. Jappalang (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the image review. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ Dennis et al., Oxford Military History of Australia, p. 530–531