Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 2010

February 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 21:48, 11 February 2010 [1].

---

Irish Thoroughbred

Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer for Ealdgyth: This article has very little to do with horses. It also has nothing to do with my normal topic area, Texas, or battles (except the kind that end with kissing) or wife selling (although there are some wife-aquiring shenanigans). This article actually covers the first novel written by Nora Roberts, who can apparently write a New York Times bestseller in about the time it takes me to pick out a new pair of shoes. The article is fairly short, and I was actually surprised to be able to find this much information about it. The book in question is a romance novel, and generally these receive very little critical attention. On top of that, the book was originally published in the 1980s, when romance was even more widely ignored, and it was intended to only be available for purchase for 30 days. In general, if the info is not in this article, it is probably not available. This is the first romance novel to be presented at FAC and it is my first attempt at writing an article on a book, so while I'm confident it meets the standards, I appreciate any feedback on further improving it. Karanacs (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • One dab link, which I fixed. No dead external links.
  • Alt text for the cover image is a bit too concise; it should tell what is in the image. Alt text good
  • Images look OK; first is fair use with standard rationale for covers; second is CC-BY-SA and appears appropriately licensed and described.
• Ucucha 21:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Good gracious, you're fast. I think I might have been in the process of rewriting the alt text when you posted. It should be fairly descriptive right now. Karanacs (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, looks good now.

Sources are reliable and consistently formatted. Perhaps I'll review the contents later—though that'll probably take me longer than five minutes! Ucucha 21:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments Good article that, although short, appears to cover the subject adequately. I was unable to find more substantive sources. Two small points to be cleared up:
  • Any reason you're using Roberts' but Travis's?
  • The first paragraph of "Genre" contains some rather short sentences.
• Ucucha 04:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for taking the time to do a full review. I've polished the first paragraph of Genre, and I've modified all the Roberts' to Roberts's. I remember questioning myself on which version to use and never went back to fix it. Thank you for catching it! Karanacs (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Great, I'm happy to support now. Ucucha 21:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support small but (almost) perfectly formed. Three tiny, tiny queries

• I assume there's nothing to link Silhouette Books to?
• It's Simon & Schuster with the ampersand, not Simon and Schuster - at least that's what their website (and the Wikipedia article) say
• could CA and PA be written in full in the the Regis and Snodgrass sources?

I'll probably deprive myself of the pleasure of reading the novel, but good luck, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks very much, Jim. If you actually read this book, my opinion of you will jump even higher - I know very few men who admit to reading romance novels (and this is really not a very good one). I've fixed Simon & Schuster. There's nothing yet to link Silhouette Books to. It's on my list of articles to write. In my experience with the MLA, publication state is always abbreviated when it is provided, so I did not change that. I did note, however, that I'd forgotten the state on one and had misformatted one ISBN, so I've fixed those. Thanks for prompting me to take that much closer look! Karanacs (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Disclosure, I do not read Nora Roberts, but boy, my mother does. She does agree, this is not one of her better ones.) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments for the time being with regard to the prose:

• I can't understand why "multiple" is usurping "many" is this and many other FACs that I have reviewed.
• In the Lead we are told that the protagonists were adversaries, but the sentence reads like we are expected to already know this. I might just be me, but I think a phrase or sentence is missing.
• I am not sure that "loosened its criteria slightly" is FA quality prose. Can criteria be loosened, can they be tightened? I am stuck for a better word but how about "relaxed"?
• I think "the general parameters that define its line" is a bit ugly. Would "genre" be of more useful here?
• Now, I'm British so this is difficult for me to talk about; with regard to sexual intercourse, I find the word "related" a little odd as in "sexual intercourse is only related within the bounds of marriage". Does this mean "takes place", "described", or "happens"?
• Again this might just be me but I think "ethnic" has had its day. It is such a tired, over-used word that's beginning to lose it's meaning. On this side of the pond it is often used out of misplaced political correctness instead of "foreign" or "black". I think in this context it just means "Irish".
• This sentence needs help, "This plotline of an impoverished Irishwoman's surprise at the wealth of America essentially reframed the Irish immigration to the United States of the 19th century." The meaning does not come over well, particularly "reframed".
• OK, I am scared of Tony, just like many others and I have found one of pet hates. "Dee was trapped within a patriarchal culture, with her uncle and prospective husband arranging her future for her." Here we have a fused participle, which Tony calls noun plus -ing. If the meaning is crystal clear, I don't object to the usage; but they can be ugly. A possible solution is, "Dee was trapped within a patriarchal culture in which her prospective husband arranged her future". (The "for her" is redundant).
• Lastly here, "In this novel, Roberts also included the motif of jealousy." I think in this novel is redundant.

I look forward to reaching a consensus on these somewhat trivial issues and adding my support for this candidate. Best wishes. Graham Colm ^Talk 11:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Graham, for your very helpful comments, and my apologies for not working on them until today (I took the weekend off). I've made the following corrections

• Added a sentence to the lead to make the info about their relationship transformation make more sense
• changed "loosened" to "relaxed"
• changed "related" to "described"
• Some nice editor fixed the noun plusing  :)
• rem redundant "in this novel"

I did not change the following -

• "the general parameters that define its line" - The genre is actually romance novel, with subgenre category romance. Within category romances, each publishing imprint has its own rules, the "general parameters", as I called them. These don't really make up a subgenre but are really publication guidelines/criteria. "Genre" is not a completely accurate term, and I'm wary of using "publication guidelines", because that could be interpreted as whether or not the manuscript must be double-spaced, etc. I'm open to other possibilities, but haven't thought of any good ones yet.
• I left "ethnic". I could substitute "exotic", but that seemed really funny, to me, in relation to Irish. I'm also not sure if that is the appropriate connotation - it's not that the places and events were unusual, just that the people/attitudes were atypical.
• I'm a little surprised to see a question over "reframed" - I thought it was fairly common for that word to be used to mean that one is saying something in a different way, or presenting ideas in a new manner. Perhaps that is just in American English? I've thought of "evoked", but that doesn't seem quite right. I may not be thinking out of the box enough, but I'm having trouble figuring out another way to get the message across without making the sentence much longer.

Thanks again! Karanacs (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with reframed now because I can't think of a better way of saying "redefined from a fresh perspective". Similarly, I see what you mean about "general parameters" and again I'm stuck for a better expression. The sentence you added to the Lead improves the flow IMHO. I noticed the kind editor's fix wrt the fused participle and redundancies. I can live with "ethnic", since it is only used once, but I still don't like the word. As I said earlier, I think my issues were relatively trivial, but I hope they were useful. I am pleased to add my support for this FAC, but I am becoming a little worried about Malleus :-) Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You're worried duckie, my wife is distraught! :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 19:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This not the kind of novel that I would ever be likely to read, so this article is mercifully short. My reading prejudices don't mean that this isn't a subject worthy of this kind of attention though. I do have one small issue to raise. The article isn't consistent about whether Harlequin is singular or plural: "Harlequin loosened its criteria slightly ..." and "Harlequin was unwilling to further expose themselves to risk". --Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Malleus - you are now reviewing two romance novels! Nice to see you are so confident in your masculinity ;) I fixed the pronoun issue. Karanacs (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't find that so strange if you met me in real life Karanacs. I have testosterone oozing out of my pores, although in a refined English way, like Alan Rickman when he played the Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Provisional support – I'm another one who is not planning on reading this one, especially not with the arrival of this in my mailbox today. Ironically, I decided to review this article and found that it was very good, as I might expect a Karanacs article to be. The one fault I found was something Graham noted earlier—the presence of the noun+ing. I saw several of them in the article, most notably a couple in the themes section (look for "with"s). The rest of it looks fine, and I'm satisfied that this meets FA criteria in general. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but as I said earlier, I don't object strongly to fused participles as long as the meaning is clear and the prose is not ugly. The remaining possible ones are: " with one editor explaining that (quote) they already had their American writer (end quote)", "with jobs including governess or secretary" and "with Roberts explaining". I offer, "and one editor's explanation was that...", "with jobs that included.." and "as Roberts has explained". Graham Colm (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm now even more seriously amused - I never expected our resident sports guru to review this one. (If it helps, I read these during halftime of college football games.) Thanks, Graham, for pointing out my other noun-plusing faux pas - this is a writing fault I need to work on. I think I've fixed all these now. Thanks to both of you! Karanacs (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Support easy read (just like Roberts, whose work I will admit to having read). Two little points:

• emdashes in publication section -- remove spaces
• "After displaying a talent for relating to animals" -- a little bulky. Needs a tweak.

Roberts is an extremly popular and prolific author; this will be an excellent article for main page and nice addition to Wikipedia. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Truthkeeper, for the review. The publication section uses endashes instead of em, which is why I added the spaces (last I looked, spaced endashes were allowed, but if the MOS has changed I'll happily fix them). I've reworded the last to Dee's love for animals is evident, and she is soon..., as I think that gives enough understanding in a slightly easier-to-read wording. Karanacs (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I thought they might be endashes after all. Sorry about that. Blame it on bad eyes! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

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 17:47, 11 February 2010 [2].

---

HMS Calliope (1884)

Nominator(s): Kablammo (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This small British cruiser, built for distant service in an empire at peace, was in the late nineteenth century among the most famous vessels on the seas. Sent to watch over German and US warships competing in a race for colonies, she was trapped with them in a small Samoan harbour by a violent Pacific cyclone. In a brilliant feat of seamanship, Calliope was the only one to escape being sunk or wrecked. Her memory is still kept green by the Royal Naval Reserve training center which bears her name. This article tells the story of her 64 years of service. Kablammo (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
• No dab links
• No dead external links, but please add dates of retrieval to some links that lack them (unless you believe that unnecessary).
• Please add appropriate alt text to all images. Ucucha 02:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Alt text was actually present but incorrectly formatted. Most is good but I'm a bit concerned about WP:ALT#Verifiability: Is it really clear to a non-expert that image 2 shows the starboard quarterdeck, for example? Ucucha 02:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your review, and fixing the formatting.
      • Retrieval dates are present in Sources; I have added retrieval dates to urls in the foonotes which are not listed in Sources. I have not added retrieval dates for print media which are identified in the Sources section, even if the footnotes contain a convenience link to a webpage which republishes the pages of the book or periodical.
      • The description for photograph 2 is verified by the title of the source image.
    • Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Please note that WP:ALT#Verifiability says the alt text should be verifiable for a non-expert who merely looks at the image. Ucucha 03:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
        • I have modified the text. Kablammo (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Thanks, I think it's good now. Ucucha 22:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

While I think the service section is pretty comprehensive, the design section is severely lacking. The ship needs to be more fully described even though most of the serious details belong in the class article. This article needs a brief summary describing machinery, armament, armor, etc. as have been present in the FA ship articles like SMS Moltke, etc.

Why the long period between her launch and maiden voyage? When was she laid down? When exactly did she become a drill ship? And did she keep that exact role for the duration of her time there?

It's not really relevant, but why were GAR and ACR bypassed to come directly to FAR? Other sets of eyes might have identified some of these issues earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Addressing the comprehensiveness issues:

• In the past I have notice a lot of overlap between design details in the class articles, and the design sections for individual ships. To me the details belong in the class articles. I wrote Calypso class corvette and C class corvette (of which the two Calypsos were a subclass) for those details, and transferred some of the text that originally appeared in this candidate to the class article. There is still an overview in this article, with more detail on armour, machinery, and armament in the infobox. This allocation avoids burdening down this general article on the ship with technical detail which can seem turgid to the general reader, while still making it accessible to the aficianado. I'm amenable to adding some more detail to the Design section, but want to keep it as an overview. I will however add some text on armament. (now done; see below)

• My preference is for a brief recapitulation of the infobox's information as part of the Design or description section, but that's just me, as I don't want to have to go to the class article to get basic stuff like armament layout, etc.

• On the other issues:

• I don't know why Calliope, the last of her class, took three years from keel to launch, and another three to completion. (Her sister and half-sisters took two for each.) For the reasons given below, I doubt such information is readily available. (no completion date available but did find commisssioning date and year of completion)
• Year laid down should be here, and I will add it. (done)
• The date she became a drill ship in 1907, which can be gleaned from the text; I will add exact date as given by Colledge. (done)
• I'm not aware of any different role while she was a stationary drill ship on the Tyne. There may be some more information available on the RNR unit there (I have seen one tidbit), but that would belong to the separate article on that unit.

In general, it is difficult to find out much about these ships. As stated in the cited Mariner's Mirror article, information on these and similar ships "is extremely vague", and Brassey's and Jane's "do little better than tabulate the main details". ". . . The author also states that "Comus and her sisters have been almost completely passed over in history." That has been mitigated by the 1963 article in the Mariner's Mirror (which I mined for details), but I have not been able to find out much more than is here. Kablammo (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I have now added a textual summary of armament, protection, and construction dates. As to the level of detail, FA criterion 4 states: "Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." Kablammo (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I understand that we disagree on the appropriate level of detail; that's fine because it's a subjective call.

Conversions are needed to metric units.

• Please see Wikipedia talk:WIAFA#Unit conversions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What caliber are the Nordenfelt guns, the machine guns and the torpedo tubes?

American acquisitions on the continent were complete with the Alaska Purchase back in 1867.

This is awkward and nearly every crew had been diminished or decimated by the loss of men killed by the storm

Fix the dab for armoured cruiser

Fix the page reference in the Lyon and Tute books; they abbreviate pp., but only one page is listed.

Location is needed for Amerika Samoa

Inconsistent capitalization in your sources that needs to be addressed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sturmvogel, I much appreciate this careful further review.

• Metric conversions-- I have elected not to give repeated conversions for units after their first appearance. I have decided to remove entirely the steam pressure conversion, as the sentence flows better without it. It is also esoteric; while I have a few sources giving the steam pressures attainable for marine uses during this era, I doubt that tangent would mean much to all but a few readers. (And I have no sources for the machinery's theoretical maximum pressure in any event.)

Only the first time a unit appears does it need to be converted, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• calibers-- I do not have information on the calibres of the other weapons.
• American acquisitions-- I was thinking of control (the frontier existed until 1890), and have reworded it accordingly.
• diminished or decimate-- Yes, I agree. Latter deleted.
• armoured cruiser dab-- it does not go to a dab. Did you mean to have it go directly there w/o redirect? If so I have done that.

Yes, I meant a redirect.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Tute page nos.-- fixed (thank you Sandy), but I am no longer citing this source. Removed.
• location needed for Samoa -- I have generally located it.

I meant for the book, which has been done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Capitalization-- While I believe I have used the capitalizations as given, I will audit the sources again. I changed Colledge from template to hand-formatted version, to conform to the others, which do not include the unnecessary proprietary OCLC link.

Thank you for your edits as well. Kablammo (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Request to image reviewer: In checking links I came across this photograph, which I am considering substituting for the somewhat similar one in the left margin. Could you please review the rationale for the new one, and if insufficient, would {{Template:PD-UK-unknown}} would be acceptable? Thank you. Kablammo (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Image review
  • In response to above, there are a couple issues. First, {{PD-UK-unknown}} doesn't seem to exist, but I would prefer {{PD-UK}} over what's there now. Additionally, I think you'll need to provide more information in the Source field about the periodical in question, so people can more easily verify that its copyright has lapsed. I don't suppose there's a chance of nailing down the exact issue it was scanned from? Can we contact this Steve Johnson?
  • Alt text looks good.
  • File:HMS Calliope in port.jpg is PD (work of US Navy), looks good.
  • File:HMS Calliope stbd quarterdeck.jpg is PD (expired copyright), looks good.
  • File:HMS Calliope 1880s.jpg is PD (work of US Navy), looks good.
  • File:Illustrated London News.jpg is PD (expired copyright), looks good.
  • File:Helicon 16.jpg could be problematic. I realize the author is unknown, but where did you actually get it? Web search? Scan? The Source field should list where you got it. Looks good. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This looks interesting—will return later with a prose review. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Andy. I am digging into the one scanned from a periodical by Steve Johnson-- it looks like it was published before 1900, but I'm still tracking that down. The Helicon image, poor thought it is, shows the ship in her later career. I e-mailed the Reserve unit at HMS Calliope (shore establishment) and they sent me this image, with the knowledge it would be used on this article. It clearly dates from 1951 or before, as that was when the ship was moved from the Tyne for breaking. Kablammo (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I didn't understand what "RNR unit" meant in the Source. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've put links in the Source field now. Thanks. And I just did a test-- the PD-UK-unknown is in use on Commons. Kablammo (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I'm surprised not to find "Calliope had 90 pounds (41 kg) of steam in her boilers".

Get rid of the unencyclopedic colloquialism. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Gene, that is from the source. I assume it is PSI, but I am not a boiler engineer. Perhaps, as you suggest, I should get rid of it entirely--90 psi would have been more significant then, than now. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so its just a reading comprehension problem then. I'll take care of it. Note that if you don't understand what your sources are telling you, then there are likely to be a whole lot of Wikipedia readers who don't understand us if we mindlessly parrot the same nonsense. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Gene, "best practice" marine steam engines ran at 77.4 psi in 1881, and 158.5 10 years later, so I'm pretty sure what this figure means. But the source is not explicit. Kb

Don't know why you have such incredible (i.e. unbelievable, not to be trusted, because they'd never be making even one single measurement of the gauge pressures involved to that precision) over-precision in those numbers you give here. But interpreting what our sources tell us is something that we simply have to do all time. Just because a source doesn't explicitly remove all ambiguities in the meanings of the words it uses, doesn't mean that we cannot figure out what they mean and act accordingly. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The data are from a chart assembled by Robin Craig, and the precision is from the source. They are consistent with a few less precise figures found in the Institute of Naval Architect's "Transactions". As it does not seem to me that steam pressure is highly useful to our readership (there being nothing to compare it to, without excessive explication), I have deleted the figure. Kablammo (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
  • Can you please italicise your book titles that are links in the short notes? And put quotation marks around the article titles? This will make them consistent with the non-linked titles in the short notes.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you. Kb

I believe this is now complete. Thank you for your review and requests. Kablammo (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Look-through by Awickert (talk)

Every point addressed. Awickert (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Worked through some spelling/grammar/style things. I've found 2 items that are unclear so far: "forced draught" - this should be defined, or should have a stub made and wikilinked. I see that HMS Collingwood (1882) defines it and has a redlink. "revolutions" (in reference to propeller speed) - is this revolutions per minute? I'm probably done for tonight, but I'll be back to finish it up, Awickert (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC) I put in links for both. I had linked "forced draught" in the text of the class article, but forgot to do so here. Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Wow, that was lickety-split! Awickert (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC) "lickety-split"?? Is that what one of these is to a geologist? Kablammo (talk) 06:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Usually. But lately I've been spending too much time in the Quaternary. Awickert (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Very au courant of you. Kablammo (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Finished going through the article and all the stylistic issues I could find. There are 3 more words or phrases with which I am unfamiliar, and that may be unfamiliar to the audience in general: latter: I'm guessing that this is part of the hull by the rudder, but I'm not sure and Google doesn't find it immediately handling relieving tackle on her tiller: tackle = rope and tiller = the connection between the wheel and rudder, I think, though I'm not 100% sure this attracted the custom of the British Admiralty: What does "custom" mean in this context? I'm guessing "attention". Also: The British Empire was the largest on Earth, and in order to protect that empire and its trade routes, Britain had the largest navy. Great Britain assumed the role of peacekeeper on the world’s oceans, and the Royal Navy was the instrument by which the Pax Britannica was kept. This probably needs some references (largest empire, largest navy, global peacekeeper, Pax Britannica). That does it for my concerns, I'm a "support" once these are done, Awickert (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. Every concern of mine has been addressed, the prose is nice, and the presentation of the heroics at Samoa is engaging. But my support can't cover the content. Awickert (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine. Comment. Fine article, but a few concerns:

• Why was the ship built? The link to the design section of the Calypso class corvette articles doesn't seem to give this information either. Why did the British build these ships? What military requirement were they fulfilling? What threat were they meant to counter? Under what naval construction program were they planned and constructed? Which government figures were their advocates?
• An article stub on the Samoan crisis needs to be started, it one hasn't already, and then a "see also" or "main article" link added to the top of the "Service with the fleet" section or "Samoan crisis" subsection as discussed below.
• Since most of the "Service with the fleet" section deals with the Samoan crisis, it probably needs to have its own subsection. I take it that details of the rest of its service with the fleet are sparse? Cla68 (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Replies Thanks to all who have commented. Responses to both previous and current suggestions:

• Weapons calibres-- RC Butcher and I have had a colloquoy on my talk page; he believes the Nordenfelt machine guns likely were 1" models. Similarly I believe it is likely the torpedos were 14" Whiteheads, which were common in RN ships at the time. In both cases we would need reliable sources: I will look again at all my sources.

found size of torpedo. Kablammo (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• latter-- the ground, i.e., the reef. Will clarify.

done. Kablammo (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• relieving tackle-- ships of this era did not have power-assisted steering. Ships had once been steered by tillers, and in extreme conditions lines were used to restrain the tiller. The steering wheel was developed, which was used to turn the rudder; and Calliope had a double wheel, which allowed more hands to turn it. In extreme conditions the wheel could break free of their grasp and turn freely (causing injury to those handling it), so relieving tackle below was also used. I will consider how to address this point, but probably in a textual footnote.

created article on relieving tackle and linked it. Kablammo (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• custom-- patronage; from which "customer" derives. (Awickert-- a usage perhaps more Paleogene than Quaternary).

OK - then it is just my ignorance, thanks. Awickert (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• British empire text-- I will supply sources-- unfortunately, my resources may be more in the nature of popular history than scholarly sources, but the points should be uncontroversial.

done, principally using the Massie book. Kablammo (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• why ship was built-- imperial policing, trade protection (mentioned in this article already), "send a gunboat" diplomacy. May address in class article instead.

Sentence added. Kablammo (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Samoan crisis-- no article yet, and no mention even in History of Samoa. It is touched on in Samoan Civil War, which is problematic. 1889 Apia cyclone also mentions it. I think it would be too far afield from the story of the ship itself to give more detail here on the crisis or the storm (especially given the existing article on the storm), but I will at least give a clearer link to the cyclone article in the Service section here.

tried a slightly more explicit link to the storm article, but otherwise made no changes. Kablammo (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Service with the fleet -- I considered having subsections, but decided against it. You are correct that there are few details. Calliope went straight to reserve from completion in 1884; commissioned in 1886, sailed to Pacific 1887–88; returned 1889–90 and went back into reserve for 7 years, and was a tender from about 1897 until 1905, when she was stricken. As far as I can tell the ship had no active service other than a few years in the late 1880s. Rather than have one-paragraph subsections bracketing the Samoa service, I decided to handle the service all together. If you feel sectioning is important I have no strong objection.

Kablammo (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Kablammo. Regarding Pax Britannica, I guess I'm short in my history of the British Empire as well as the nautical terminology! Maybe it isn't as important as it's obvious to someone who knows about the topic. But if you want academic sources, just send me a wikipedia-email as usual and you'll get them in my reply. Awickert (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer-- we'll see if there are any questions about the ones I'll use. Kablammo (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments A brief look finds work to be done on the references:

• There is no such thing and never has there been a "Navy Historical Center". See the note on the bottom of this page for giving proper credit to Naval History & Heritage Command. This applies to the photos as well.
• You need citations for the infobox.
• "Wilson, "Glory for the Squadron".. I don't see the point in repeated links to the PDF in each cite when it's listed in the sources. Same applies to "Warships of the World to 1900.
• In the sources section use authormask=2 for authors with more than one work listed. --Brad (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments

• I see it should have been "Naval". I will change that on images. Where a document bears a publisher name, however, I'm not sure that it should be changed to the new name-- I don't think we do that for books.

• Are infobox cites now a requirement? They are not something I can add right now.
• I have chosen to link web resources directly from footnotes so that the reader (of the footnote) is one click away from the site, rather than two. Some of the web links are google images of print sources; these links also are added for reader convenience.

• I am unfamiliar with the "authormask", or with what it does.

"Real life" has intruded and I will be away from a computer for perhaps a week--I am not sure. I can make a few edits from my phone but will not have all of the tools. Kablammo

• Oppose, 1a. I stopped reading halfway through "Service with the fleet", but lots of attention to detail and prose work is needed. The article is peppered with MoS problems (too many for me to fix briefly), grammatical inconsistencies, and plenty of opportunity for more elegant writing. Examples follow—please treat this as a sample list, not a comprehensive list. Given your shortage of free time, I recommend withdrawal for a good prose and MoS workshop with an experienced FA writer from the ship project like Bellhalla, TomStar81, etc.

• I have to say the opening para of the lead is not very cohesive. There are some facts(?) hidden in the subtext that need outright explanation to the layperson. For example, someone might read that the corvette was also a cruiser because she had engines—is that true? You use the terms interchangeably and it gets confusing to say the least.
• I've read it again and I think most of the confusion originates with this sentence: "She was among the last of the sailing corvettes but supplemented her sail rig with powerful engines." It's the "but" connector that stops me dead in my tracks. Why is the second phrase contrary to the first, as the "but" suggests?
• Second para in the lead: Again the connector seems awkward. Replace your quote with something shorter for a test—doesn't "where" seem more logical? Ex. "She was known for an incident where she was ..."
• "Calliope and her sister Calypso" Are we confident readers understand the concept of sister ships well enough that we don't even write "sister ship"?
• Inconsistent hyphenation: Why "C class corvette" and "C-class vessels"?
• Is 6" the standard style? In related articles, we seem to spell out "inch". In fact, you vary within the article.
• More elegant writing is needed in many places where you're needlessly wordy. Ex. "The British Empire was the largest on Earth, and in order to protect that empire and its trade routes, Britain had the largest navy." Why not simply: "The British Empire was the largest on Earth, and Britain had the largest navy to protect it and its trade routes."
• "by which the Pax Britannica was kept" No explanation or link?
• "This great storm increasing in ferocity over the next two days." Grammar? And.. please no easter-egg links.
• "her propeller was making 74 revolutions" Why link to RPM but not write "per minute"?
• "On her port and only 20 feet (six metres)" From MoS: "Render comparable quantities, mentioned together, either all as words or all as figures"
• "This attempt was called by the American commander on the scene 'one of the grandest sights a seaman or anyone else ever saw; the lives of 250 souls depended on the hazardous adventure'." More MoS problems—if a quotation includes punctuation, it needs to go inside the closing quote.

--Andy Walsh (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Amending my statement above—perhaps digging in and shuffling through the issues is a better use of time than withdrawing and coming back. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through and made several edits to address my items, some of which may be subjective. Please review my changes, particularly ones that affect ship jargon and units of measure. I'll return later today and comb through it again to look for any further issues, but I think we're close. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support now. Look, it's magic! You don't even have to do anything and I go from opposing to supporting. Anyway, I fixed the items I saw. I see more things I would change but I'm hesitant to keep pushing the merry-go-round until everyone falls off or gets sick. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

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 17:47, 11 February 2010 [3].

---

Battle of Winterthur (1799)

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... it fills a wikigap. I'm preparing several articles on the War of the Second Coalition, focusing in particular on the campaign in southwestern Germany and northern Switzerland, and including several battles and several generals (Johann von Klenau, recently promoted to FA, is one). This is a gap not only in wikicoverage but also in literature on the Second Coalition in general. Much of the literature focuses on northern Italy campaigning, which of course is where the great man himself was most active. Thanks for your comments and helpful critiques. As always, I will work hard to bring the article up to snuff; it has passed GA and Military History A-class review, and is in good shape, although I'm sure some folks will find some issues to bring up here. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I've checked Dabs, and as of now there are none. All pictures have alt text, or link=, and the link checker tool says the links are good. I'm also the primary editor. Auntieruth55 (talk)

PPS per talk page discussion, this is my fifth FAC. Unification of Germany, Cologne War, and Hermann Detzner have been promoted, and Johann von Klenau was promoted last week. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - you have multiple citations for the same page numbers. Use the <ref name> template. Parrot of Doom 22:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• No thanks. I prefer to not use name templates because of the confusion they cause for newbies. This is not actionable. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have diffs for this "confusion to newbies" thing? Is that the only reason you dislike named refs? ... Everything confuses newbies. Could probably find diffs of newbies being confused by wikilinks, citation templates, shortcuts, etc.

In refs but not notes: Hicks; Mörgeli; University of Zurich. In notes but not refs: Kurdna and Smith. • Ling.Nut 01:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm the newbie.;) I detest named refs and won't use them. I find them terribly confusing to read, and would prefer go the other route. Thanks for catching the Kurdna and Smith thing and the other ref. I'll fix that. Hicks is in there. Ref 45. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that's your choice, personally I think it makes things more confusing. If you're going for "east of use" though, a quick look at the formatting of your citations reveals:

References - inconsistent capitalisation of Accessed.

Huerliman ref. fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ref 22 - check pp or p, also, why are there two page numbers?

because they are two different books....? Unless you mean citation 19, which refers to pp 45-46, and p. 48. In that case, since I've been castigated before for not being specific enough in the citations, I noted specifically where the information came from. pages 45-46 and page 48. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So why cite two book with one citation? You should use two citations instead, to avoid confusion. Parrot of Doom 00:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, why are several books quoted in full in Citations and Notes and Bibliography, while other books are summarised in the former, and quoted in full in the latter?

All are cited in full in citations and notes the first time they are mentioned, and afterward, I use the abbreviated citation. In the Bibliography, I use the bibliographic citation format Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? It just makes the references section needlessly complicated. Just list the books in full in the bibliography section, and use abbreviated citations in the notes section. Parrot of Doom 00:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ref 48 - Smith, Data Book - Bibliography says Databook (no space).

Fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography - Peter, Armin... no full stop on the end.

Fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Seaton, Albert. The Austro-Hungarian army of the Napoleonic wars. London: Osprey, 1973, 9780850451474. - what's that big number on the end?

fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Smith, Digby. The Napoleonic Wars Data Book. London: Greenhill, 1998, ISBN 1-85367-276-9. - why does this ISBN have dashes, and others do not?

fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Young, John, - this entry highlights that its in two volumes, but other books just quote the volume number.

yes. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Parrot of Doom 02:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Parrot of Doom:

I've thought a lot about your comment above

Why? It just makes the references section needlessly complicated. Just list the books in full in the bibliography section, and use abbreviated citations in the notes section.

and actually started to switch the citations to short form throughout, but cancelled the switch. When I read an article, I like having the full citation, so I can see what is being cited, at least in the first instance, and from there, knowing what "Smith, Databook" is, for example, or Blanning is. There are a lot of Smiths out there, and it could be anyone, but knowing it is Digby Smith gives credibility to the citation. Although there aren't a lot of Blannings out there, knowing it is Timothy and which of his books is cited gives credibility also. While there is room for minor formatting problems (accessed/Accessed, Data book, Databook, etc.), these are fundamentally minor and easily fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that's your choice, but I cannot reconcile your statement "I detest named refs and won't use them. I find them terribly confusing to read" with having a references section that frankly, looks a mess. Sorry. Parrot of Doom 22:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
  • Hugh Chisholm, The Encyclopædia Britannica, New York, The Encyclopaedia Britannica Co., 1910–11, vol. 29, p. 735 Can you give the title of the entry for this one, so we know what is being cited? it's duplicated in a lot of other place, so I took it out.
  • Current ref 18 (Terry J. Senior) "Ney had been promoted to General of Division only weeks early." do you mean "earlier" here or was he promoted two weeks earlier than his sceduled promotion?

same as above.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Current ref 18 again, can you link to the actual PAGE you're citing on this site please, rather than the home page? Also, what makes this a reliable source?

all of this is replicated in the other sources for the paragraph, so I took it out.

• • Archibald Alison. History of Europe from the fall of Napoleon in 1815 to the accession of Louis Napoleon in 1852. N.Y: Harper, 1855, Chapter 28, p. 20 is a 150 year old source, surely something more recent is available to cite "On 22 May 1799, Friedrich Joseph, Count of Nauendorf led a large column across the Rhine at Stein and Eglisau, while Hotze led another column across the upper part of the river, where it is still a mountain stream. From from there, Hotze's force passed through the Grisons, into Toggenburg, and moved toward Zürich."

Very few detailed accounts of the battle. Most of the "modern" literature focuses on the action in northern Italy (where Napoleon and Suvorov were), not in northern Switzerland. This was the most specific description of that I could find, plus Jomini.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave this for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As we are all aware, the discipline of history has changed in the last 150 years. Is there no modern source that backs up these facts? That kind of thing always worries me. Sometimes facts are omitted from modern sources because there is no evidence for them. If, however, there is no modern interest in Switzerland, as you say, that is a different issue. Are we absolutely sure that no modern source can be found? Should perhaps an attribution be made in the text, then? Awadewit (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There is Rodger, which I cited earlier in the text. Blanning has also written some on the situation, and I've incorporated his work. But the most specific texts are Jomini, Archduke Charles' papers, Alison, etc.. As you've pointed out, the discipline of history has changed a lot, just in the past 20 years, much less 150 years, and the best source on troop movements, etc., is still the really old texts. Who went where, did what, lost how many. In some cases, there is a considerable amount of confusion about who did what, where, when and how. For example, crossing the Rhine, where...? But once people like Jomini got involved, well after the fact, and sat down with their maps etc, these are fairly reliable, if not always impartial. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The only modern French, German or English source I could find that commented on the Rhine crossings was http://www.napoleon-online.de/AU_Generale/html/nauendorf.html , a German website associated with the Napoleon Series that has Nauendorf crossing one day before Hotze, on May 21st. Beyond that, I found various older sources contradicting each other to some extent as to the precise location and date of the crossings, including one older source that mentioned that there were conflicting accounts even then (all posted on Ruth's talk page). But as much as they differ in details, they are in broad agreement in that Hotze and Nauendorf crossed the Rhine on May 21/22, Nauendorf west of Lake Constance, and Hotze to the southeast. I guess we could (and perhaps should) place a note giving alternative accounts, but it is really a minor detail. --JN466 01:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm satisfied on this point, but I wonder if adding a footnote to the effect that particular sources are useful for troop movements might be nice. Awadewit (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Current ref 23 (Smith) same problem as current ref 18 above, link to the exact page please and what makes this a reliable source?

link to page: cannot link to exact page. site doesn't allow it. I've included all the information one needs to find the page.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

reliability: well, first, it's Digby Smith. One of these days I'll get around to writing an article about him. He's written about 20 books or so on the Napoleonic Wars, plus many many articles. Second, the Napoleon Series website is one of a hand full of really good sites for research on the Napoleonic Wars. Most of the contributors are amateur historians and reenactors, but there are several professional historians involved. Third, it's Robert Burnham, the editor in chief, who has peer reviews for all the articles, if even if the quality of the writing isn't always top of the line, the information is. I refer my students to it (university students) as a legitimate reference, and a couple of my students have had their papers published on it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

We bow down to the god of Digby Smith. :) Whereas I would prefer to use his book publications, I do understand your reasoning for using the web versions. Awadewit (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

actually, the only thing I've used of his online is the Kudrna/Smith bios on the napoleon series. The rest are hard copies in my library. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• • "Michel Ney". New international encyclopedia, Volume 17. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1914–1916" surely something more recent is available for information on Ney!

Sure there is. This one is surprisingly detailed, though. And the basic facts don't change. Born, promoted, injured, executed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Actually, occasionally facts CAN change. Granted, not often, but when you exclusively use older references, you leave yourself open to comments that you haven't done a good comprehensive survey of the available sources. I could sorta understand if you linked to the googlebooks page on this, but you're not even doing that. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I did give a preference to sources that are available online, either at Googlebooks or Gutenberg, but I didn't link to the pages, because that would make it appear that we are promoting one online book source over another, which I'm told we don't want to do. For the Unification of Germany article, I was told to remove all the googlebooks links, which was a real chore!, after I had taken great care to put them all in. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• • And I echo LingNut's comments above.

if named refs are made a requirement for FA, I probably won't be nominating any FAs any more. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean the named refs, but the other bits. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you using this source for the details you mention or the basic facts? If you are using it for the basic facts, I would suggest using the modern EB. One of the major flaws of the 1911 EB is that it includes interesting anecdotes that are completely unreliable. Awadewit (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a 1990s print copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica, as well as an online subscription to britannica.com. If you need something checking, let me know. --JN466 00:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the only remaining question I have about the article. Awadewit (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Cited to Bravest of the Brave. Reliable standard (if elderly) bio of Ney. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I"m going to leave these out for other reviewers to consider. I'm not sure who told you to take out the googlebooks links, because it's never been required at FAC as far as I know, but I'm not going to tell you to put them back in either. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I went through this Google book links question before; we decided that there was no rule against them. • Ling.Nut 07:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

seems there is no rule for it either, so I'll leave it to readers to fetch the books from where-ever they wish. I've added another paragraph with some more up-to-date sources, but there really isn't much. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support

• I think that this article needs another copyedit. As I was reading it, I found a lot of little typos. I fixed them, but I am by no means sure that I found them all. A single pass by another person should help find all of these.

I passed through again and several others have as well but. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

J has gone through it (he's a copy editor, and very good), and I've gone through it again. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• A map of the battle would help. I wasn't exactly sure where all of these towns were. My understanding of European geography is perhaps better than the average American, but it is still not stellar.

there had been a map once, and it had been deleted. See if this one helps. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It would help if there were some surrounding context to the map. What are the surrounding countries, etc.? Awadewit (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

new map. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That helps, yes. Awadewit (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think that the casualty figures should be mentioned in the text, not just in the infobox. Perhaps these should be placed in the "Aftermath" section?

added.Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

In general, I found the article comprehensible and thorough, particularly the "Clash" section, which I thought was particularly well-written. Awadewit (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I am doing a proofread and copyedit now. --JN466 21:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks - just indicate here when you are done, and I'll cross that off above. Awadewit (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • There's a sentence I can't resolve: "That night, 26 May, Hotze camped 30 kilometers (19 mi) between Frauenfeld and Hüttwilen". Could you have a look, Ruth? --JN466 20:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I've now completed the run-through. Unfortunately, I had work coming in, so it took a bit longer than I'd anticipated. The revised graphic is helpful! There is one more thing which I think could be made clearer, namely that Ney stayed with his rear guard (he must have, because he was wounded by the musket fire directed at his rear guard). When I came to that bit of the narrative, I at first did a double-take, because I expected Ney to be safely on the way to Winterthur, his retreat covered by Walther & Co. Otherwise, like Awadewit says, it is very engagingly written. --JN466 23:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• My remaining concerns with the article have to do with the sources - see questions above. Awadewit (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I took care of the sentence J pointed out. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Are there more source issues? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• New map. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• I will be happy to support once my last question about the encyclopedia is answered (see above). Awadewit (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• My issues about the sources have been resolved. I am now happy to support. Awadewit (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Support; well researched, well written. --JN466 01:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - background information needed on this point: you refer to a rivalry between Ney and Soult, but could you elaborate more? The infobox image is, for me at least, extremely confusing at that resolution. Consider moving it down and increasing its size? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

apparently Soult was not a team player. It isn't particularly relevant, the rivalry here, but just that Soult didn't do what he was told to do, and Ney didn't forget it.

image. Well, I could but I don't have a info box image to put in its place. Suggestions? Location map? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems to me (from just reading the article and having no other knowledge of the topic) that the French might have won if Soult had showed up, so I just want to know more :)

A map would be good. I can't get any useful information out of that image unless it is blown up, which I believe would be prohibited by MOS:LEAD(?) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

they might have, but it would have been a close run affair. Hotze had a lot more men than Ney, and Nauendorf was on his right. Massena didn't have a lot of flexibility to move guys around because of the circle Charles was building around him. Or semi circle. But certainly, if Soult had followed his orders, which apparently he developed a habit of ignoring (see his actions in the Iberia campaigns later), then it might have taken a day or two to push them out of Winterthur, not 11 hours.

re the image. I'm not being difficult, there just aren't a lot of relevant images. The Swiss and German campaigns have been largely ignored due, I think, to Napoleon's absence. Jomini gives it quite a bit of coverage, but he was interested in mountain warfare, or at least upland warfare, and the Austrian problems with it at that stage of the military's organization. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha "a habit of ignoring orders" -- not normally a thing you want to see out of your commanders. ;) I just think you could add a sentence or two on the rivalry, as otherwise a mention of a rivalry with nothing else attached leaves me, and I presume readers, wanting a little more.

Indeed! I actually don't know much more about it. One source mentioned it in passing, so I used it. I have read, though, that Soult made life difficult in Spain for Suchet and others. I'm reluctant to go into more detail. Seems to me that could be another article, or an addition to the Soult article. Apparently he was unpopular with the other generals. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay then. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I know you aren't being difficult! Perhaps the map you made that is now in the clash section would work? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

the map that is in the clash section needs to stay there I think. There is a location map in the Winterthur article. Perhaps that would work? I don't know how to insert it though, with the long/lat marker on it. Do you? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm. To me, it looks like {{coord}} and {{Infobox Swiss town}} are interacting to produce that? I'm really not sure. Does anyone else know? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks, that wasn't there 5 days ago. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but it doesn't seem to have been fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Did it again!  !Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary

Support from JN, Ed, Sturmvogel 66 and Awadewit

Ealdgyth reviewed the sources and left a few for others to decide for themselves. He also checked the links, and they were fine. With Awadewit's help, this is cleared up.

Ed doesn't like the main image in the box, but neither of us can figure out what to do to add a specific kind of map, and there already is a map, so....

Parrot thinks the citations are messy, but hasn't presented any other objections to text. The citations are standard, and consistent, Parrot just doesn't like the style of them (wants named refs).

Dabomb87 has checked for Dabs, and I fixed the one he found.

: Needs image review, which I asked for on project talk page Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Media review from Charles Edward

• • File:Andremassena1.jpg - image needs source and description
  • File:Général JEAN VICTOR THARREAU (1767-1812).jpg - image needs source and author information.

These are done. Plus added additional information on the other marshals' images.

• • File:Archdukecharles1.jpg - image needs date an author

will find. Swapped image for one that I could verify with date and location. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• • File:Н. М. Аввакумов. Портрет А.В. Суворова.jpg - image needs an english description, source, and author.

swapped this for one that wasn't from someone's personal archive. But I did add the english. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• • File:Winterthur Battle 1799.svg - I see the alt text in the code, but it don't display on the page for me. Maybe you have some bad syntax in there?

HELP!!!! Why doesn't it display. There is a red box in front, does this mean there is an error?

I fooled with a bit and can't get it to show either. I am not sure what is wrong? It must be the syntax of the code somehow. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Alt text is showing now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• • File:Winterthur Battle 1799.svg - image is a derivative work, the source of the original image needs disclosed.

These are the district maps from the Swiss project. 23:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Good luck. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - nice map in the infobox; it gives very useful information to a reader unfamiliar with the topic. I can't see any other problems with the article. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Support --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment- Main image alt text requires some work. Currently reads 'Topographic map of battle ground'. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

New text below. 21:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Topographic map of battle ground shows the many lakes and rivers of the Swiss plateau, which stretches southeast to west-northwest, from the Switzerland's border with France, to the shores of Lake Constance. On the southern flank of the plateau, the alps block access to the Italian states; on the north flank of the plateau, a series of moderate hills rim the Rhine River. The battleground, south of Lake Constance, is depicted with a star.

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 17:47, 11 February 2010 [4].

---

2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes

Nominator(s): BT (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel the article is complete. A fairly small article, yes, but the earthquake swarm consisted of minor earthquakes that were too small to cause damage or to be felt by people; the largest earthquake was only magnitude 3.9. Thus, only seismic devices were able to record the earthquakes. But the swarm is still notable, given the fact that these are only recorded earthquakes in the area it took place from, they caused interest to scientists and they were even mentioned on CBC Television. I searched the internet to gather as much information as I could from reliable sources, but some were just discussions from people on chatterbox websites that were interested in the earthquake swarm from when it began in 2007. The article is in a good state for such a small series of earthquakes..... BT (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked myself and everything appears to be ok. There are no disambiguation links or dead external links. BT (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks), but it doesn't convey the essence of the maps, namely, the useful information that they convey to the sighted reader. Instead, the alt text mostly just repeats the captions, which isn't what alt text is for (please see WP:ALT#Repetition). Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance on alt text for maps, and WP:ALT#Essence for advice in general. Eubulides (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully the alt text is better now. I have expanded and rewriten much of the text. BT (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it's better now. I improved it a bit further. Eubulides (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Support - Sorry, BT, think the prose needs a bit more work. I'm concerned that the article has only 10 sources, though the length doesn't really concern me as much. Perhaps you could search a bit more for sources? I'd understand if there wasn't.

I searched everything and I could not find anymore sources. I would think 10 sources would be ok for a minor series of earthquakes compared to earthquakes that have been felt, done damage and killed people. While I was reading through the article again, I fixed some the of written information. BT (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed, but I'm still a bit wary of the length. I recognize it's a rather minor series, but even so that gives me notability concerns. Despite these concerns, I'm willing to post a weak support. ceranthor 16:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Amendment for delegates, changing to full support since Awickert has confirmed the content is good. ceranthor 20:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with the length? It's not like every earthquake article has to be the same length in order to pass a FA candidate. The earthquake articles you brung to FA status are just a tad longer than this one (e.g.1968 Illinois earthquake, 1997 Qayen earthquake or 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake). And this minor earthquake swarm is most likely notable enough if it was reported on TV news channels, it caused an excitement throughout BC, it is the only notable earthquake series away from the BC Coast and it brung attention to scientists. That seems pretty notable in my opinion. BT (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• It took place in the sparsely populated Nazko area of the central British Columbia Interior starting on Tuesday, October 9, 2007. - it? Wasn't it a series of earthquakes? Also, there's an inconsistency with the infobox with the date.

Yes. The reason I used "It" was because the earthquakes in general was an earthquake swarm. If you think about it as an earthquake swarm, it would be single. As for the infobox date, it is supposed to be for when the earthquake swarm began. BT (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• The main shock epicenter - shock's epicenter

I deleted "shock" since the epicenter is really part of the swarm's hypocenter. While I was changing that I noticed another error; since it was a series of earthquakes, there would have been more than one epicenter. So I changed it from "epicenter" to "epicenters". BT (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Its cause is not clear, but the swarm originated from a magmatic source due to the existence of sporadic outbursts.[3] - due to the existence of sporadic outbursts?

Yes, meaning the outbursts of the earthquake swarm went off and on. BT (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Before the Nazko earthquake swarm began in 2007, the earthquake zone these earthquakes originated from did not necessarily exist.[6] - didn't they occur at the edge of the Anahim hotspot (according to the lead)?

The Anahim hotspot or Anahim Volcanic Belt was not known to be an earthquake zone before these earthquakes began. BT (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Seismologist John Cassidy said: "the depth is enough to rule out hydrothermal but it's up in the air as to whether the cause is tectonic shifts or volcanic activity. If it is volcanic there are certain characteristics that we would expect, there's a tremor-like character to it. And so we'll be looking for the types of events that we see beneath volcanoes and we'll be looking to see if they're getting closer to the surface of if they're migrating at all."[8] - he stated that...

True. BT (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

ceranthor 22:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• The article looks overall pretty good. I can't find any issues with the science, just with wording and clarity. I'll be making some small edits to address these over the next few days, and if there's something large that I notice in the meantime, I'll post here again. Awickert (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Done. Awickert (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Conditional <add>Full</add> support pending resolution/explanation of below minor issues:

• "It has been suggested" is passive voice. Please revise.

Fixed. BT (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• 400px is too wide for an image to have text flow around it per MOS.

Made the pic smaller to 350px. BT (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Scientific response section:"The earthquake swarm was notified on..." Shouldn't that be "noted" or is that a peculiarity of Canadian English?

I don't believe so. Changed it anyway. BT (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Preparedness and hazards section: "... have established seismographs in the area to determine future earthquakes in the area more clearly." Shouldn't "determine" be replaced with "monitor"?

Yes. BT (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Odd usage "living magma chambers". I've never heard that usage before.

Odd for sure. I changed it to "active magma chambers". BT (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

--mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 00:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support the content Just finished going over it. The science looks good, and I fixed and clarified all the little things that seemed to want attention. I did some stylistic stuff too, but I'm not extremely familiar with the more intricate parts of WP:MOS, so it might want a new pair of eyes before it heads out to be a full-fledged FA. But content-wise it has thumbs-up from me. Awickert (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstood my addition to it would turn out to be a highly explosive eruption like those that occur at subduction volcanoes. Of course explosive eruptions can occur far from plate boundaries, but I added that because the volcanoes she mentioned (i.e. St. Helens and Pinatubo) are related to subduction volcanism and not hotspot volcanism like Nazko. Hotspot volcanoes are not normally highly explosive like those that occur at subduction zones; Yellowstone is only one of the few hotspot volcanoes that have highly explosive activity. BT (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that! Maybe it should be restored as, it would turn out to be a highly explosive eruption like those that can occur in subduction-zone volcanoes. (Non-explosive volcanism also occurs at subduction zones, and "subduction volcano" isn't used in the professional literature.) Awickert (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

That's likely better. I understand not all eruptions at subduction zones are explosive and "subduction volcano" is not used in the professional literature. I used "subduction volcano" to be parallel with other usages in articles on Wikipedia, but most of those articles are not close to FA class, so it's clear the term "subduction volcano" should not be used. BT (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem - I knew what you were talking about, but as this is a FAC, I wanted to make it as professional as possible. I figured that you understood that about subd. zone volcanoes, but the sentence was ambiguous. By the way - thanks for writing the article! I had a blast reviewing because I'd never heard of the earthquakes before. Awickert (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• File:2007-2008 Nazko swarm location.png doesn't appear to be accurately licensed, since it's apparently a derivative of an image with unclear permission. Otherwise images look okay. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

How is that file a derivative? It's not a direct copy if the file is not the same. Plus, the file is my work I took from the given source. My image and the other image on the given source are not the same. They have different graphics. BT (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It's nearly identical to this image [5]. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok are you saying my image is copyvio or should I just replace the current source with the one you cited. If it looks like copyvio then I will just replace that file with another one. BT (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I'm saying you need to provide permission info for the original image. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. There is info given for the original image in the file's source section and it provides the same website you gave. Apart from that, I'm the creator of File:2007-2008 Nazko swarm location.png. How is it not accurately licenced under Creative Commons if I'm the creator of this image? BT (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

File:2007-2008 Nazko swarm location.png is almost identical to the image from the original source. Correct? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. BT (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to get away from this problem, I switched the image to one of Nazko Cone. Your first statement was File:2007-2008 Nazko swarm location.png is apparently a derivative of an image with unclear permission. What's unclear about it? The original (and copyrighted) version is most likely a work of Natural Resources Canada. I have also changed my licence to Public Domain instead of Creative Commons. BT (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is from Natural Resources Canada, and I found its orignal source. It is linked here (click on "map of the largest earthquakes"). This fig might also be useful, and in fact, I was very successful by Google image searching Nazko site:.ca. Awickert (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that 1) "most likely" isn't good enough without evidence, and 2) we don't know what the copyright status is. That's what's unclear. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a similar map created by Natreal Resources Canada here on their website. But that appears to be an earlier map because less dots for the earthquakes are shown compared to the other version. But the maps themselves are the same. So the copyrighted version of File:2007-2008 Nazko swarm location.png is obviously an NRC work. This discussion would likely better on the candidate's talk page since this is a problem no longer part of the article. BT (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhh.... see above? I'm telling the truth! I'll even give the image's URL! An identical almost-identical map (probably the original) (just different color scheme) is from Natural Resources Canada. There is no copyright issue. I'll even replace the image... (and if you missed the links given above, please note the other lined image of the progression of the hotspot). Awickert (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC) (updated 01:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

Actually, is Natural Resources Canada an OK source for images? I'm thinking maybe not, their copyright statement says no to commercial reproduction of multiple copies. Awickert (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see a problem. File:2007-2008 Nazko swarm location.png is not a copy of an NRC image. If it was, File:2007-2008 Nazko swarm location.png would be copyvio but it isn't because it is work created by a different person and they both have different graphics. The NRC is not taking over my work period. I am willing to recreate another image if I have a source..... BT (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh - I think that I see - so you created your own fig with the same data? (Sorry about my confusion). I'm not sure where copyright would fall in terms of this, so apologies to all for my adding to the confusion. Awickert (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I made another image using NRC data last night as File:2007-10-19 Nazko earthquakes.png for events on October 19, 2007. Where did you find this image? I will make my own work using this data to overwrite File:2007-2008 Nazko swarm location.png if I have to. BT (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Found it at NRC, with the link in my first post on this topic. Awickert (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I know, but where on the website? If I remake this image I will need the source where I got the image from. BT (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought that this would work? It is from Natural Resources Canada, and I found its orignal source. It is linked here (click on "map of the largest earthquakes"). Awickert (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It does work. I just don't know if I can just give a link to the image or I need a link to the NRC website as well. But I found the image just by searching "Nazko Quake Swarm" and it appears to be on the NRC Nazko Cone page here. BT (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I was trying to copy my original comment but did it out of the edit window (and therefore without the link). Should have said: It is linked here (click on "map of the largest earthquakes"), Awickert (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

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 17:47, 11 February 2010 [6].

---

A Momentary Lapse of Reason

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 18:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Its Pink Floyd lite's first outing. Some may view this article has being heavily-biased toward the infighting and politics that were going on at that time. Necessarily so, because all the sources used focus on these events, to the detriment of the technical details some may wish to read. I've also struggled (annoyingly) to find many online reviews for the album. I've done my best, however, and I present Gilmour's growing girth for your mirth. Parrot of Doom 18:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• No dabs, alt texts present. JN466 22:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• I find the second para of the lead somewhat confusing: "Guitarist David Gilmour had, in 1985, begun to assemble a group of musicians for what, at that point, would have been his third solo album. Later he changed his mind however, and then with the assistance of drummer Nick Mason and keyboardist Richard Wright, he helped craft what would become the group's first album since the departure of lyricist and bass guitarist Roger Waters in December of that year." December is the last month of the year, and the paragraph reads as though all these things happened after Waters left in December. Could this be reworded? --JN466 22:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Yes, you're correct. I've clarified matters, have a look at the lead now. Parrot of Doom 22:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• We refer to Profiles as Mason's solo album, but according to our article on the album, it was a collaboration with Rick Fenn (the cover says "Mason + Fenn"). --JN466 22:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• • A solo album doesn't necessarily mean that the artist worked alone - it can be inferred that a solo album is a body of work away from the artist's usual home (band). Blake (2005) refers to Profiles as "Mason released his second album, Profiles, a collaboration with former 10cc guitarist Rick Fenn". Schaffner (1991) says "they decided to try their hand at an album". While its primarily a collaboration, I'm happy to call it a solo effort when referring to Mason within Pink Floyd. Zee, which Richard Wright was a partner in, cannot be described in the same fashion, as he had left the band years previously. Parrot of Doom 22:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay. I guess one could see it that way. --JN466 01:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• The citation of "In the Studio with Redbeard, A Momentary Lapse of Reason, Barbarosa Ltd. Productions, 2007" is a little cryptic. Given that it is a radio show, would it not be best to use the {{cite episode}} template for radio show episodes, inserting the show's official title (wikilinked) for "series", and adding the airdate along with season and number, if available? --JN466 22:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I only know the year it was broadcast (20th anniversary), not the date. I can't use the cite episode template as I'm using the citation template throughout. Parrot of Doom 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Per WP:CIT, there is no citation-family alternative to {{cite episode}}. Perhaps Sandy could advise us here? Is the citation template okay to use for radio shows? At any rate, I feel something in the ref should make it apparent that "In the Studio with Redbeard" refers to the radio show In the Studio (radio show), and that "A Momentary Lapse of Reason" refers to a (September?) 2007 episode of that show. But, you understand, it's not a big thing, and not something I'd oppose over. ;) --JN466 02:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I've added format = Radio broadcast to the reference. This should be enough information for anyone interested to track down the source, which unfortunately is no longer on Redbeard's site. I can't add a month as I don't know which month it was broadcast. Parrot of Doom 13:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• "To drive home the message that Waters had left the band, a group photograph, shot by David Bailey, was—for the first time since 1971's Meddle—included in the gatefold. Wright's name appears only on the credit list." I think we should spell out who was included in the group picture. --JN466 18:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking of adding an NFCC image of the centrefold for just this reason. Its pretty notable - the first group photo they put on a studio album since 1971. What do you think? Parrot of Doom 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I would like to have the picture if it's compatible with our NFC criteria (I don't have a very good understanding of those, so I'll keep shtum beyond saying I would like it.) --JN466 02:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I've added the picture, which includes the list of credits (emphasising Wright's role) Parrot of Doom 14:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• What we have in the article looks good and well researched, but I do miss information on the music itself -- the style and mood of the songs, the arrangement, the musicianship and the production values. --JN466 19:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I have no source material on these matters - and I have most of the best Pink Floyd books. I'd normally fill this in using album reviews, but I haven't tracked many down. Most people focussed on the Waters-Floyd feud, rather than the music. Parrot of Doom 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Amazingly, we have a separate article on each of the album's 10 or 11 tracks, but they don't cite more than 3 sources between them. And none of those are about the music. :( --JN466 02:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I've dropped Parrot of Doom a couple of possible sources on their user talk page. I do feel that in an FA on an album we have to say something about the music itself. --JN466 11:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I've added some details about individual songs. Thanks for this. Parrot of Doom 14:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I've left you some more sources on your talk page (including a Gilmour quote which I would recommend incorporating for balance -- we give Waters a lot of room, given that he didn't play on this). But I think the article is 95% there and therefore support. --JN466 19:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• External links look good.
• Needs a link to The Final Cut.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It already has one. Parrot of Doom 00:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Source comments Everything fine, but make sure the MacDonald book has a publishing location for conformity.

• Any luck with this location? RB88 (T) 20:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments I ce'd the lead+infobox and the lists at the bottom btw.

• • Unfortunately you introduced several factual inaccuracies while doing so, and the list is (as with other Floyd albums) displayed in the same order as appears on the album.
    • Fair dos, but I did not add or take any info away. RB88 (T) 20:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Note 5 flirts very dangerously with WP:OR.
  • Its a well known fact that they weren't allowed in, Mason is just more diplomatic about things. In fact Mason glosses over most of the bickering. I thought it worthwhile adding the note although it isn't necessary.
• Although reviews are used in the text, why are they not put in the list? Also, I found two more if there are spaces in the 10 limit:
  • • Because they're not sourced from the review, they're sourced from the books that summarise the review.
  • http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/58764201.html?dids=58764201:58764201&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Nov+28%2C+1987&author=CHRIS+WILLMAN&pub=Los+Angeles+Times+%28pre-1997+Fulltext%29&desc=POP+MUSIC+REVIEW+It+Looks+Like+Pink+and+Sounds+Pink-but+Is+It%3F&pqatl=google
  • http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/access/55744650.html?dids=55744650:55744650&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Sep+24%2C+1987&author=John+Milward%3BDavid+Patrick+Stearns&pub=USA+TODAY+%28pre-1997+Fulltext%29&desc=Popular&pqatl=google
• In the lead it says "multi-platinum" and that's it. My question is: In what market?
  • In the US. Corrected.
• Why is Richard Wright in "additional musicians" instead of Pink Floyd in personnel?
  • He wasn't a member of the band. Parrot of Doom 19:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Then maybe this should be made more explicit in the lead, which might make some readers think otherwise as the current sentence stands. RB88 (T) 20:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
      • That's a fair point, how about this? Parrot of Doom 21:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Detail added and I'm happy, although it might bring up prose issues with two bracketed sections in the same sentence. RB88 (T) 23:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

RB88 (T) 14:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Support with regard to well-written, engaging prose and comprehensiveness. I never think of this as a Floyd album, and I suspect Gilmour would agree, but this is not a neutral point of view. The nominator does not need to "apologise" for the article's focussing on the legal shenanigans between Waters and Gilmour, Mason and Wright—these are central to understanding the significance of this album to the Floyd cannon, both artistically and historically. I think the editors and nominator should be congratulated for contributing what is, IMHO, the best article on this album I have read. Graham Colm ^Talk 00:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Media review:
  • Alt text looks fine and is present for all images.
  • File:MLoRLP01.jpg - Fair use image, seems reasonable rationale; album cover helps identify the album and is discussed at some length in the Packaging section.
  • File:Pink floyd learning to fly.ogg - Fair use media sample; this is questionable. You use it to illustrate how the album's sound was drastically different from the previous, but I don't see where in the text you provide critical commentary about the stylistic differences. Indeed, the discussion of the musical style of the album is almost completely absent. All we have is Ralbosky's quotation, unless I am missing something.
    • better? There are several points in the article which discuss differences in style. Firstly, the fact that no other Floyd album previously, used samplers, or drum machines (both of which would use MIDI syncronisation, which is mentioned). Secondly, Gilmour's quote about "can't go back". That same track also includes the boating sample described in the article, as well as Mason's takeoff commentary, but its not possible to include both of those as the audio clip would then be too long. The clip also includes the lyrics mentioned in "Recording". Parrot of Doom 20:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • File:AstoriaHouseboat.JPG - cc-by-sa 3.0, looks good.
  • File:Pink floyd momentary lapse gatefold.jpg - Fair use; again, questionable. You mention the gatefold, but it is not the subject of critical commentary. Nothing is represented that's not said in the text, and as such, the image does not aid reader understanding.
    • The gatefold includes the photograph of Gilmour and Mason, which was included only to reinforce to the public the fact that Waters had left. Pink Floyd hadn't included a band shot on an album since 1971. The image also shows clearly that Wright is not a part of the band, but is a contributory musician, by showing the credits. Considering the politics and infighting were so central to this album, its inclusion is certainly warranted. If you doubt the fair use rationale, nominate it for deletion. Parrot of Doom 20:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • File:Pink floyd momentary lapse tour montage.jpg - cc-by-sa 2.0, looks good.

--Andy Walsh (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose on criteria 3 for now until the above problems are addressed. I also have a potential concern about the research. You mention in the article that its sound was drastically different from The Final Cut. Why is there no significant coverage of the overall musical style? I've already been berated this week for not understanding the vagaries of WP:ALBUM, so please bear with me if my question is ignorant. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • If you can find significant coverage, you'll be more successful than me. I've already mentioned in the nomination why this article focusses more on internal politics than music - because most of what's written about this album is about the former, rather than the latter. Its a musically weak album, but important in the history of the band. Actually though, the easiest way to demonstrate the stylistic differences is simply to click through to the Final Cut article, and listen to the audio clip there. I'd include that clip here, but doubtless it would just create problems. Parrot of Doom 20:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I am satisfied with the responses, thanks. I took a quick look around the library databases and didn't find anything on the style anyway. The only thing said is that it's different, which is what you already have. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks. If I'm honest its been frustrating having to read different sources all saying essentially the same thing about the album - "Waters- "Gilmour is a cunt etc", David "I can write lyrics, honestly!" Gilmour, Mason "I'm keeping out of it, etc etc". I'd like to find a good solid review of the album but unless I find original magazine reviews (and I wonder, given the general opinion of the album, if they're lengthy), I think I'm stuffed. So I've tried to explain things chronologically, but have focussed on all the fighting. There's actually more, but some readers I think would want to read a little bit about the music... Parrot of Doom 22:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose on 1b and 1c for now: I'm sorry to do this, because I like the article, but I think we're missing some things here. I spent some time digging around the library and came up with some additional sources that you haven't use and which represent information that's not in the article. I'm thinking that with some additional research, we could beef this up with more information about the style. In particular, the area of focus could be how the style of this album was incidentally different from past Pink Floyd albums, and the things Gilmour did deliberately to make it different. So in summary, the 1b objection is to lack of sufficient information on style, and the 1c objection is to the number of sources I found containing new information. These are all from NewsBank/Access World News:
  • MacInnis, Craig (September 1, 1987). "Pink Floyd's new 'melodic' album out next week". The Toronto Star. This one contains an interesting story about their rehearsals for the world tour in an airplane hangar at Pearson International Airport.
    • That is a wholly speculative article about both the album, and the tour rehearsals. I have already summarised the early tour/rehearsal problems using more up-to-date and more reliable sources, but any more information about the tour belongs in A Momentary Lapse of Reason Tour, not here.
  • I see you attribute a quote to the Quill article "Has Pink Floyd changed its color to puce?", but there is a lot more in there you didn't use. It is a whole discussion of the question of what stylistic elements make a "Pink Floyd" album.
    • Yes, and there are some issues with that same article - "Nick Mason's lumbering drum fills" isn't wholly accurate, for one. I'm not keen on using a largely-dismissive album review to summarise the album's style and content. It would raise issues of neutrality.
  • Morse, Steve (September 17, 1987). "Equal time for Pink Floyd". Boston Globe. There is some background here about the songwriting and style imbalance that contributed to Gilmour's opinion of the shortcomings of The Final Cut, and what strategies he used to address the imbalance on Lapse.
    • Also makes mistakes: "bassist Richard Wright" - Wright wasn't a member of the band, and he certainly wasn't a bassist, with weak research like that I'm not sure I want his comments in the article. I'm not certain why I should include Gilmour's opinion of The Final Cut too much here. Its all readily available at that album's article, and the two albums don't share any particular connection. It would make more sense to compare About Face with The Final Cut, since they were made much closer together. I don't believe that Momentary Lapse was created "in response" to TFC.
  • Quill, Greg (September 18, 1987). "Now Pink Floyd is doing it Gilmour's way". The Toronto Star. More information about stylistic differences between Gilmour and Waters, plus some interesting stuff about the tour production, special effects, etc.

Plus many more. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've already read almost all of them, several weeks ago, when I spent hours trawling Newsbank's search results. Ultimately, they're almost all rather weak in content, and I'm not particularly keen to "build up the content" with scraps of text from a wide range of newspaper comments. The audio clip does a better job than any amount of prose could in summarising the differences in style between this, and other Floyd albums. When listened to with the comments in the reception section, I can only think that a quote from Gilmour regarding the lack of sentiment usually found in Floyd albums, missing from TFC, and his trying to restore that sentiment, would be appropriate. Parrot of Doom 18:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well you're nothing if not persuasive, I have to hand it to you. My overall concern is that two narratives emerge in the sources I've read: One is that Waters had taken almost complete creative control of the band with The Final Cut, upsetting the normal balance between his "heavy" lyrics and Gilmour's "warm" music. How did Lapse restore that balance, or did it? The other is that there was debate over what defines a Pink Floyd album; how did the style of Lapse affect that debate. Do you feel those narratives are represented in the article today? --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right in that there's certainly something to be made of Gilmour's comments about "more about the music, than the lyrics". I'll have to have a read through my sources to see what I can find. I'm a little bit busy with Blackbeard right now so I'll probably do it tomorrow. Parrot of Doom 21:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay with this, work etc. Have a look at this and tell me what you think. Its probably the best I can do for now, there are so few reliable comparisons elsewhere. Parrot of Doom 18:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Weighing in on sourcing I scouted all the paper articles mentioned above when I did my review and concluded that they did not add anything or were wholly accurate for that matter. Also, most, if not all biographies, summarise nearly all articles together with band interviews. Since all important Floyd biopics are researched and covered, I have to conclude that 1b and 1c are covered. And I have read some of those books; they are more thorough than the Talking Heads and FMac ones I have personally used. RB88 (T) 20:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Sorry for the delay in revisiting, but I think we are in the right territory now. I reviewed quite a bit more sources, and amazingly there doesn't seem to be much more of substance than what you've already written. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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 17:48, 9 February 2010 [7].

---

Golden White-eye

Nominator(s): Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This article had a very thorough GA nomination round. It's stable and has just about every reference there is on this species. It's shorter than some other bird FAs, reflecting the relative poverty of research species in this part of the world get. Nevertheless I feel it meets the criteria. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments (may do a full review later)
  • Please fix the dab link to Rota
  • External links all work
  • Alt text is present, but describing it as just a "small yellow bird" may be a bit too little. Perhaps add some more descriptive alt text?
• Ucucha 19:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Link to Rota had been fixed, a bit of lag I feel. With the alt text, I have expanded the alt in the first image, do I have to do it every time? Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, presumably server lag. Thanks for the expansion, alt text is good now. Ucucha 19:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hello—I would presently oppose [concerns addressed] based on some problems with the writing:
  • "Fossil evidence shows [that] the Golden White-eye once also occurred on Tinian and Rota but has subsequently become extirpated in those locations from the impact of human activities."—does fossil evidence show that the species "has subsequently become extirpated", or is this a new thought? I'd recast as "Fossils provide evidence that the Golden White-eye once also occurred on Tinian and Rota, but the species was extirpated in those locations by the impact of human activities."
  • "In addition translocations of 50 birds from Saipan to the island of Sarigan, a predator free island reserve, is currently being planned by scientists working to save the species"—"translocations ... is currently being planned"; compound adjectives like "predator free" or "golden coloured [bird]" need hyphens; "in addition" is clumsy without a comma following it
  • there are a number of "which"s that need a comma before them ("It is threatened by the invasive brown tree snake which has recently become established on Saipan")
  • Some basic proofreading is needed: "The song that is a long raspy warble rendered as "séé mé-can you séé mé-I can séé yóú-can you séé mé'"; "where it is shares its range with"
  • "There is considerable overlap between their foraging range and those of"—grammatical number
  • This is a run-on sentence: "Certain tree species are preferred as foraging habitat, for example the common forest tree Cynometra ramifolia is the preferred tree and used more frequently than the equally common Guamia mariannae."
  • "On Saipan, the only habitats it is generally absent from are the..." is much nicer as "from which it is generally absent"
• Regards, Outrigger (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I have tried to address them all. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The sentence about fossils showing that the species was extirpated by humans still reads the same (if that's intentional, fine). Otherwise the prose has improved. Outrigger (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Image review All OK Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I made some changes, mainly minor stylistic stufF, but please check
• 2,095 birds/km² needs imperial conversion
• Some reference tweaking fr icon, bare url etc, please check

Um, km² gets converted to... square miles? Acres? Hectares? Sorry, really don't know. Other edits are cool. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've put 8.47 per acre, round it to 8.5 if you prefer. Or you could use 5427 per sq mile! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Acres is fine. That is an impressive number of birds to cram into an acre. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support COI declaration. I'm another bird project member, but I hadn't edited this until the FAC tweaks above. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. Appears well-written and comprehensive; my concerns were all resolved and are now moved to the talk. I leave one here for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ucucha 14:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. A good article in general, engagingly and comprehensibly written. I have a few small comments on the text and found a few sources you have not included.
  • Per WP:TIES, shouldn't this article use American English?
    • Mebbe. It's borderline, in my opinion, the ties are there but they don't strike me as being very strong (most islanders seak English but not at home). And since my British English is better than my American English (I tend to use both) I tend to use it, and since I was the first person to expand this in any way yadda yadda yadda. I don't care one way or another, if anyone wants to change it they can do so. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Don't care much either, not enough to change it at any rate. Ucucha 13:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Support (moral or otherwise) as WP:Birds member and sometime looker-over of this article. I can't think of anything else to improve. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments Looks good, just a few comments below. Sasata (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Looks FAC-quality to these eyes. Sasata (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• The following source (Camp, RJ; Pratt, TK; Marshall, AP, et al. (2009). "Recent status and trends of the land bird avifauna on Saipan, Mariana Islands, with emphasis on the endangered Nightingale Reed-warbler Acrocephalus luscinia". Bird Conservation International. 19(4 ):323-337) mentions that since 1982, "the human population on Saipan increased more than four-fold and much of the island has been developed." It also gives birds numbers for surveys conducted in 1982, 96, and 2007 that show decreasing population. Perhaps this info could be worked into the article?

• Bird Conservation International is irritatingly one of the journals I cannot get at my uni. I can certainly, working off the abstract, state that it is declining, but the abstract provides no context, is it precipitous? Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• 749-> 426-> 373. I can email the PDF if you'd like. Sasata (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, the paper was great (if depressing) reading. Have incorporated the info. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• "… rendered as ""séé mé-can you séé mé-I can séé yóú-can you séé mé"" what do the accents on the vowels imply?

I have no idea. I just quoted what the HBW did and attributed it to them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe another bird fan could comment? I'd like to be able to correctly reproduce this bird call, it might save my life someday... Sasata (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• maybe link breeding pair, forest canopy, understory, predated
• what size are the eggs?

Done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Reference formatting needs a quick copyedit: compare page range in ref#5 (194–95) versus #12 (317-326). Article titles have inconsistent capitalization.

Fixed I hope. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Close, just make the display of final page in the range consistent (eg. 355–65 vs. 660–668). (yeah, nitpicky, I know) Sasata (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, fixed. Thanks for the comments, paper and support. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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 17:48, 9 February 2010 [8].

---

Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park

Nominator(s): Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch _><>°^°

We are nominating this for featured article because we believe it represents some of the best work that Wikipedia has to offer regarding state parks. Although it is not the main article on Ricketts Glen State Park, it follows a format and style very similar to that of six other state park featured articles we have worked on, the two most recent being Cherry Springs State Park and Upper Pine Bottom State Park. It has undergone an extensive peer review (thanks to Finetooth and Brianboulton) and we want to thank all of the editors who helped choose the images here. We also checked at WT:FAC to make sure this was not too list-y and OK to submit to FAC, here. This is a beautiful park and the waterfalls in it are its most famous attraction. We hope this article does justice to them. Thanks in advance for any feedback, Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Technical comments
  • No dab links or dead external links.
  • Alt text is present and generally good, though some parts could use a copyedit. For example, please check the text for File:Ricketts_Glen_State_Park_Murray_Reynolds_and_Shingle_Cabin_Falls.jpg and File:Ricketts_Glen_State_Park_Onondaga_Falls_4.jpg. Ucucha 15:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much for checking these, I have copyedited both alt texts, hopefully they are now better. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I have copyedited alt text through the end of the Ricketts Glen section now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Support: I reviewed this carefully written and beautifully illustrated article in mid-January. All of my concerns have been addressed, and I'm certain that the article meets the requirements for FA. Finetooth (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your kind wortds, help selecting images, peer review, and support, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Thank you for your support. Dincher (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks so much for checking those, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Support: My one comment is that, at 450px, the lead map overwhelms the text. I know comments are often made about unreadably small maps, but in this case 350px would be more than adequate (I've tried it out), and I strongly recommend you resize to this. The only other observation I have is that because of its length and multiplicity of images, the page takes an age to load - a couple of times I got timeouts. Maybe I should update my software. I mentioned the overall quality of the article at peer review, and I am happy to reiterate its praises here; a magnificent achievement, well deserving of promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your peer review and very kind words. I have resized the map per your suggestion. I know from the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject talk page that the coordinates templates also slow page loads, as do the convert templates. In a few articles we have replaced the {{convert}} templates to speed load times, not sure if that would be worth it here - I would not want to remove any of the images. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. We added 120 images to List of Pennsylvania state parks without slowing the loading of the article. I think the slow loading is due to the convert template. Which I can live with or without. Dincher (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed all of the convert templates (over 100) and hope it loads faster now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Now loading in about 20 secs on my machine, and I reckon that's OK. Brianboulton (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking and glad it is somewhat faster. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Only minor change I would suggest would be to add a text instruction within the lead map clarifying how to enlarge it. Other than that, it looks to be a superb piece of work. Mighty Antar (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much - clicking on the image of two rectangles in the caption allows the reader to enlarge the map here (or any thumbnail image). I am not sure how to say this succinctly in the caption, will think about how to try and do it, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have tweaked the map caption, hopefully this is clearer. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Support with regard to Criterion 1a. An engaging contribution, so well-written I can almost smell the water. The photographs are beautiful. Whoever lives in this part of the world in very lucky indeed. Thanks for the virtual tour; I really enjoyed it. Graham Colm (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your very kind words and support. Glad you enjoyed the tour - even in Pennsylvania, Ricketts Glen is unique. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Dincher (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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 02:26, 7 February 2010 [9].

---

The Green Child

Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I bring this little article here with a great deal of trepidation. It's on a fairly short novel, the only one written by Herbert Read, but I'm about as far away from an expert on English literature as it's possible to get. I came across this book half a lifetime ago, and it's fascinated me ever since, so I wanted to at least try and do some justice to it and perhaps bring it to a wider audience. I couldn't have even got close to this effort without the help, advice, and support in particular of Awadewit, Moni3, and Ealdgyth, who all have my sincere thanks. Any shortcomings, errors, omissions, or downright misunderstandings are of course down to me though, not them. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Technical comments (might do a full review later)
  • No dab links.
  • No dead external links; links requiring subscription are labeled as such.
  • First image (cover) needs alt text. Good now, thanks! Ucucha 02:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This image is fair use; the fair use rationale is standard and persuasive.
  • Second image confirmed as CC-BY-SA-2.0 (released by photographer on external site)
• Ucucha 01:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've added alt text to the first image. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

SupportComments: Very interesting indeed. However, the "autobiographical" section gives us virtually no information about Read, who he was, etc. Some information about his background and his place in the literary world is necessary. The Critical reception looks thin; the first sentence ought to be attributed, and the Eliot quote merely repeats what you've already said in the lead. Can this section be expanded – I would have expected a greater range of critical comment for a book that has run to several editions over sixty years? In general, punctuation needs tidying here and there, but that's not a major issue. Brianboulton (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

All concerns addressed. Happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 09:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Replies

• Thanks Brian. The Autobiographical section is intended to draw out the autobiographical elements encountered in the novel, not to be a precis of Read's life or place in the literary world. Herbert Read has his own article, of course, so what I've tried to do here is to concentrate on those biographical details that provide insight into the novel, not the novelist. I've expanded a little on the "state of flux" mentioned in the Biographical background ... section, for instance, to explain the switch in his political idealogy from communism to anarchism. On reflection that may be worth expanding on just a little more in the Autobiographical section ... in any event, I want to avoid adding detail that doesn't help to explain the book.
  • My mistake, I meant my comment to relate to the "biographical", not the "autobiographical" section. My feeling was that, although as you say this article is not about Read, it would be useful for readers of this article to know just a little more of him, and I think you have now done that. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• The first sentence of Critical reception is already attributed, or am I misunderstanding you?
  • It is cited but not attributed as, for example, the Eliot quote is. We need to know whose wording you are quoting. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah, understood now and attributed. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'll see if I can dredge up any more reviews, but that's about all I've managed to track down so far.
  • Can you also try to expand the Eliot comment? Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    • On further investigation it appears that Eliot may have been making a general comment about Read's writing, not about this novel specifically, so I've removed it. I've added a quotation from historian David Goodway, which suggests that there may not be much more critical material to find: "[Read's] remarkable career and formidable output have generated a surprisingly limited biographical and critical literature", but I'll keep looking. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• What kind of problems do you see with the punctuation?
  • Couple of examples: "Professor of English, Richard Wasson,..." - comma after "English" is superfluous; "The Green Child, is "highly regarded and widely debated": again, superfluous comma (after "Child"). Suggest you check for similar others. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    • OK. I've had another look through with my comma-pruning shears. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

--Malleus Fatuorum 15:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support (Note: I offered some comments on this article back in October.) This article is well-written and comprehensive. There is not that much scholarship published on The Green Child, unfortunately, so we have to make do with the scraps available. :) The psychoanalytic material is very challenging to explain to a lay audience and I think this article does so well. Awadewit (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for looking it over Awadewit, for your support, and most of all for the help you so generously offered last year. You really ought to be a conominator, I think, as I couldn't have written anything like this without your assistance. This is a book I've loved for years, but I must admit I didn't fully understand it until I started on this article, and I'm not convinced that I do even now. Hopefully my enthusiasm for it comes through and may even encourage others to read it, with a bit more understanding than I did when I first came across it. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• You're welcome - seeing more high-quality literature articles on Wikipedia is my raison d'etre in editing, so I'm happy to help out. I think your interest in the book does come through. I've just checked it out from the library. :) Awadewit (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. Well-written, good structure, appears to be carefully researched and appropriately referenced. I struggled a little with part of the 'genre and style' section, but happy with the article overall. My specific queries:

• The sentence "In the manuscript, the final part of the story..." seems to interrupt the explanation being offered to the reader about how Plato's Phaedo is reflected in the novel. Particularly if, like me, one knows nothing about the Phaedo, the preceding sentence has set the reader up for an explanantion of what the similarities are, only to be briefly derailed by what i suggest should be a footbnote to the text, regarding the allusion to Plato's work that was lost in transition from manuscript to published book. If you drop that sentence to a footnote, i think it flows much better.
• In the following sentence the word "however" appears too late for it to scan well: "Read was "almost certainly" influenced in his depiction of the world of the Green people by W. H. Hudson's 1887 utopian novel A Crystal Age however, a story in which people strive to "live above their own mortality"." If I have understood your intention correctly, then it would be better written as "Read however was "almost certainly"..."

Otherwise excellent and most interesting. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply

• Thanks. Both your comments make sense to me and I've made those changes. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Support I've never heard of this book, let alone read it, but if it reads as well as the article, it might be worth a shot Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Jim. It's quite a short book, and the three parts are almpst entirely separate, so it can be read quite quickly. There's some beautiful phrasing in it; this made a particular impression on me all those years ago: "words and things grow together in the mind, grow like a skin over the tender images of things until words and things cannot be separated". --Malleus Fatuorum 15:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support This article is well-written and flows beautifully. Just a couple of quick nitpicks: first, footnote 11 is the only footnote to end with a period - was that intentional? Second, the last bibliography entry has the Goodman book title as Herbert Reassessed, while all other entries have it as Herbert Read reassessed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. "Reassessed" is correct, the others were just carelessness on my part, now fixed. So far as footnote #11 is concerned, that's the way that the {{Template:Inflation-fn}} works. I'll float the idea of adding a "postscript" parameter to make the period optional on the template's talk page. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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 02:26, 7 February 2010 [10].

---

Panellus stipticus

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The bitter oyster mushroom is one of the best-known of a few dozen mushroom species that glow in the dark. I think the article is comparable to other fungus FACs in terms in comprehensiveness and quality, and look forward to further improvements the FAC process may bring. Sasata (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 15:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
  • What makes http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=styptic a reliable source?

The information it is being used as a source for is a recent addition by Circeus, who indicated in his comments that the web source is temporary until he is able is cite it to something more reliable. I will drop a note here when that happens. Sasata (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Circeus has now supplied reliable sources for the etymology. Sasata (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Likewise http://www.mushroomexpert.com/panellus_stipticus.html? (Forgive me if we've covered this site before... it's been quite a few FACs since then!)

No problem, it was discussed here and here. Sasata (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(Resolved comments moved to talk - Ucucha 23:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

• Support. Comprehensiveness, images, prose, use of sources all appear good. An exemplary article on an interesting fungus. Ucucha 23:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Support - Yay fungus! Wasn't this stuff used in the movie Avatar? Seriously though, great article. Well written, sourced (yes, other sources can be used too, but the ones in this article look like WP:RS to me), and professional layout. Links check out and image copyright looks good. My only suggestion would be to find a way to move the ==Bioluminescence== section up since I, at least, found that section to be the most interesting and has the best images. The sequence image is especially amazing! --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Those pics are pretty nice, and helped motivate me to write the article. I have an image bias: if I can't find nice pics, I usually won't bother writing an article about a species. When I saw those photos, this was an easy choice. I effectively moved the bioluminescence section up slightly by adding a bioremediation section after it :) Sasata (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support despite the revolting shade of green when they bioluminesce. Another polished article from a seasoned fungus man (no Raymond Briggs ref intended) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support (moral or otherwise as WP:Fungi member) - this one has gelled together really nicely actually. Well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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 02:26, 7 February 2010 [11].

---

L'ange de Nisida

Nominator(s): Andy Walsh (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a shorter but fascinating article on a little-known but important opera by Gaetano Donizetti. It started as a whim to make a red link blue; soon, I was digging up everything I could find about this never-performed work. It's been thoroughly researched in books, journals, and at a major music library. I am confident I have discovered everything scholarly that's been written about L'ange. It's also had a thorough Peer Review by Brianboulton. I hope you enjoy reading about this interesting piece of opera history. Andy Walsh (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments You have two Wintons in the refs, but the notes don't provide a year to differentiate between sources... Oi, are we allowed to have Synopsis sections with no refs? In other words, are synopses a special case? • Ling.Nut 04:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed the Winton, thanks. The standard for Synopses is that they don't require a source; see for example Agrippina (It has footnotes, but no actual refs). In the case of L'ange, no one has seen it and no act-by-act synopsis is available. My only source of information was Ashbrook's description of the plot, presumably from his examination of the autograph in Paris. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. Stop me if I'm wrong, but if there is any rationale at all for having no refs in synopses, it would be that the info is "common knowledge". I can certainly see where a synopsis Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" would not need refs. In this particular case, however, the synopsis is far from common knowledge (as you just stated). I would think that giving Ashbrook credit in the first sentence of the section ("Ashbrook states that blah blah..") would be appropriate. • Ling.Nut 05:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Good suggestion. It's not like anyone can dispute him and go see it for themselves. Attributed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support: A fascinating piece of opera archaeology, on which I commented at length at peer review. One might say that this is Donizetti's equivalent of Beethoven's Leonore, the eclipsed forerunner of a more famous work. At any rate, I have never seen so much material gathered about L'ange de Nisida in one place, and this strikes me as being illustrative of the true function of Wikipedia; you can get information here that is not easily available elsewhere.

On Ling's point, the general rationale for no citations in the plot synopsis is that the work itself is deemed to be the source for a plain plot summary. It may be that in this case, with the work unperformed and (I assume) the original libretto unavailable, we are reliant on Ashbrook to tell us the plot, but this is a special circumstance. Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comments For the synopsis... I'm not sure about the current "Ashbrook summarizes:". It's rather inelegant. I see no reason why this attribution can't be made as a footnote. Also, it might be worth mentioning in the article that a copy of the libretto is held in the library of the Fondazione Donizetti in Bergamo [12] and (I think) reprinted in The Donizetti Society Journal N. 7, Donizetti and France, 2002.[13] - Voceditenore (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps add further reading? There are two articles available the Donizetti Society Journal above:

Fulvio Stefano Lo Presti, "Sylvia prima di Léonor (con interferenze di un duca)"

William Desniou, "Donizetti et L'Ange de Nisida"

Also if there's any info on the singers who had been engaged to sing in the defunct premiere, that would be a useful addition too. I think I saw a mention of one or two in my perigrinations around Google Books. Voceditenore (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support now that my suggestions above have been implemented. This is not only fascinating subject, it thoroughly covers the material available in English sources striking the right balance between readability and scholarship, a valuable addition to Wikipedia. There is perhaps more detail available in Italian and French sources, but these have been added to the article to help the reader research further. I've taken the liberty of adding two more which were listed in Cassaro's Gaetano Donizetti: a guide to research.

Something you might want to consider, but it is by no means necessary, is to put the footnote about Juliette Bourgeois as an introduction to the roles table. Something like:

"As the opera never got to the rehearsal stage, little is known about the intended cast. However, in a letter to his close friend Tommaso Persico, Donizetti expressed his desire to give the title role to Juliette Bourgeois, a temperamental soprano who requested a large sum of money to perform in France. (She was later to create the title role in Donizetti's La fille du régiment)"

Incidentally, by all accounts, e.g. [14], [15], [16], Bourgeois was actually French, although she performed primarily in Italy and under the name "Giulietta Borghese" (and variants). It's worth double-checking Ashbrook to see if he actually says she was Italian as you currently have in the footnote. As you can see in my suggested wording above, I've left the nationality out, perhaps the way to go as it sounds a bit odd to say "a temperamental French soprano who requested a large sum of money to perform in France." Voceditenore (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a great suggestion—I have converted the footnote into intro text to the Roles table. I checked Ashbrook and the wording indeed suggests she was a soprano "in Italy" but doesn't mention the nationality. As such, I took that out as you suggested. Thanks again for your insightful remarks. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Response to Voceditenore - Thanks so much for your input! I have performed the following changes in response to your comments. On the issue of the singers: I found that Donizetti hoped to give the role of Sylvia to Juliette Bourgeois, and I represented that in a footnote to the Roles table. Is that sufficient? I didn't not find any other information on who he wanted, since they never even began rehearsals.
  • I've changed the way the synopsis is attributed per your suggestion. I hope to avoid putting the note after the heading, which I've seen in practice in other articles and I find it visually noisy.
  • The transcribed libretto (both at the Foundation and in the Journal) is now mentioned.
  • Further reading section is added with the Italian-language articles.

--Andy Walsh (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Really well done, just got a couple of nitpicks, outside of that, it meets criteria well.

1. The entire "context" portion is lacking images. This might make it a little better is the elegance department.

   #Roles section: Can we have a little more specification on the use of citations? The only citations in the third column of the chart. Does Ashbrook list all of these? If so, I'd have the citation post in all three columns.

   #""[I]t was expanded from an unperformed three-act French opera, L'ange de Nisida."" - for clarification, what is meant by [I]t?

2. "L'ange de Nisida (The Angel of Nisida) is an opera semiseria in four acts by Gaetano Donizetti, from a libretto by Alphonse Royer and Gustave Vaëz." - Might want to add the place where all three are from, because the play may be from France, although people may not know that if they are or not.

   #Could we find a place to split two paragraphs in Contract and cancellation?

Outside of those, you're good to go (although I wish this would at least be a GA).Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 22:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Response to Mitch - Thanks for your review! Some replies:
  • I'm afraid any image I add would be gratuitous at this point. I did add a view of Nisida but even that is just there for idle interest.
  • I added the citations to the Roles table as requested.
  • The introductory phrase to the quotation mentioned specifies which opera it is in reference to.
  • I believe it would be unneeded detail to list the nationality of the composer and librettists, and it doesn't seem to be a convention in other similar featured articles; hopefully we can see eye-to-eye on that.
  • I would prefer not to split any paragraphs in Contract and cancellation; the first is exclusively about the contract and I can't find a way of splitting it that wouldn't cause an odd hiccup.

Thanks for your support, and I hope I have resolved and/or answered your items to your satisfaction. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

As for the nationality, I think we could use a reword of the sentence, something just sounds weird.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 23:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll think on it and try coming up with a compromise. --Andy Walsh (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: I added a line about Donizetti's nation of origin to the lead and the first para of the body. I don't think Royer and Vaëz are relevant; hopefully this is an acceptable compromise. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Further update: I have added a public domain image of a souvenir libretto from La Favorite to the Reworking section. I hope this resolves your concern about further images needed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Appears to be comprehensive, and is certainly well-written. Maralia (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Images: The images of Donizetti and the libretto have credible public domain (copyright expired) rationales. But the view of Nisida, which has the same rationale, does not seem to have the age implied by its template. (Author's life plus 70 years; even if the author died right after taking this image, the image would have to be from 1940, wouldn't it? It doesn't look it.) --JN466 04:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• You're right. I found this image on the Italian-language Wikipedia and uploaded it to Commons. I didn't look carefully at the Italian public domain notice that was there. I assumed it was a general public domain notice, but it actually claims public domain due to expiration of copyright. Therefore, that's what's translated to Commons. I've replaced it with a CC-by-SA 2.0 image I found on Flickr. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I was just going to say there are possible replacements in commons: [17] --JN466 05:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, found one I like better. Thanks. :) --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Images okay now. --JN466 11:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support, at least on the prose, which is excellent. Sharp, concise, and still engaging. Bravo. ceranthor 20:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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 02:26, 7 February 2010 [18].

---

Alexander Pentland

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nominating another aviation bio that I think meets the FA criteria, focussing on one of Australia's top-scoring aces of World War I, a great character in the annals of civil as well as military flying. Currently GA, plus A-Class at the MilHist project - any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 15:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is there a reason to link "Australian"? It's bunched up with six linked words out of seven in a row. Please see WP:LINK.
• The title is "The King's School", so "The" should be blue too, I guess. Looks funny without. I had the misfortune to be interned there for six years, so I should know.
• Could you remove "reading"?
• MilHist of Australia during WWII is odd with a pipe "war was declared".
• I think "radar" is a common term.

Looks good on a quick run through. Tony (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Tks for review, Tony. Agree with and actioned all except the WWII link/pipe, which still makes sense to me as we're talking about Australia's declaration of war - but happy to hear other comments... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Support

• Dabs and alt text look good. A couple of external links timed out, but the others looked good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Tks Storm. Yeah, those buggers always seem to time out with the checker but they're fine when you follow the link in the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Tks Ealdgyth. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Support-- Well--organized, illustrated, laid-out and written. (I have not checked images or sources.) Some copyediting suggestions:

• Lede:
  • 1st paragraph, 3d sentence: In this summary it is unnecessary to name those who scored higher.
    • Not strictly necessary, and one reviewer at MilHist ACR did ask the same question. My response is that there may also be those who'd like to know the others first up, seeing as he was close to 'the top' and they all have articles, plus, pragmatically, it was a bit more info to help 'even up' the lead paragraph lengths (just an aesthetic consideration).
  • 2d paragraph, 1st sentence: Consider splitting this up. Two different subjects.
    • Done.
• World War I:
  • 1st paragraph, 3d sentence: What is a "sewage farm"? Is it a sewage pond?
    • Believe so - can alter if you think the latter's more common.
  • 2d paragraph: "deployed to new unit" Are we back in France now? Keep us oriented. What kind of convoy was stopped? Military cross "promulgated" in London Gazette: Is this the correct usage? Or was it announced in Gazette?
    • First two points actioned; "promulgated" seems to be fairly common - "announced" is okay too I guess...
• Between the wars:
  • 1st paragraph: "Though the fledgling Air Force had the air of a flying club" It took me three readings to realize how "air" was used in it the second appearance. The sentence is somewhat long-- can it be split or rephrased?
    • Changed "air" to "atmosphere"; split long sentence.
• World War II and later life:
  • last sentence: He was survived by his daughter; his funeral was not.
    • Quite right - thanks!

An interesting read, and his personality comes through. Kablammo (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's great to hear, Kablammo; thank you for the review/support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Image review
  • File:OG2029Pentland1943.jpg is PD in Australia and US (copyright expired), looks good.
  • File:SADS7BRIT.jpg is PD in UK (copyright expired), looks good.
  • File:PentlandRFC.jpg is PD in Australia and US (copyright expired), looks good.
  • File:PentlandMoth.jpg is PD in Australia and US (copyright expired), looks good.
  • File:015458Pentland1943.jpg is PD in Australia and US (copyright expired), looks good.

--Andy Walsh (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Tks for that, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support but why is "Jerry" used twice in the general prose? It's his nickname but not a common name. Surely eg, writing "Thorpey" all over Ian Thorpe's article would make it a too affectionate/POV and detract from its encyclopedicity, especially when describing his death, it makes it sound like a guy talking about his pet dog or something YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Tks for support but I don't think comparing "Jerry" to "Thorpey" is really fair. He was always called Jerry and never Alexander by the look of it, that's what comes across in his biography and in the entries in the various aces books. If you think it'd be clearer, I could change nicknamed "Jerry" to commonly known as "Jerry" or something similar on first mention under Early Life... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

But if his common name is Jerry, shouldn't the article moved to Jerry Alexander then? We don't list Tony Abbott under "Anthony" or Steve Waugh as "Stephen". I also noticed that you piped Arthur Henry Cobby as "Harry Cobby" ; if he was commonly called Harry why isn't the article there, same as for Prince Harry of Wales rather than Prince Henry YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean move to Jerry Pentland? Well maybe it should be, I didn't create either the Cobby or Pentland articles, just piled on the content and didn't fuss too much about what was the 'perfect' name to use for the article; have to admit that sort of thing can get to be like the number of angels on the head of a pin for me... On the other hand I created a redirect for Jerry Pentland, as you see, and would've created one for Harry Cobby if Grant65 hadn't already. Again I don't think the comparisons are quite apt - the examples you give are contemporary and far better known to the average person than Cobby, let alone Pentland, so their article names are more cut and dried. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming this can be sorted off-FAC, since both are reasonable and experienced editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Reckon so...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:MOSNUM calls for digits here; YMMV:

These would be his last victories; his grand total of twenty-three included eleven destroyed, one of which was shared, and twelve out of control, three of them shared.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I always go back to the first bit under the Numbers heading, where it says may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred, in concert with the clause Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs - plumping for the latter option of course... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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 02:26, 7 February 2010 [19].

---

Takalik Abaj

Nominator(s): Simon Burchell (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a comprehensive treatment of the subject and is stable. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Alt text, disamb links and external links look fine. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Map alt text probably should not start with "Map showing", though—it should describe what the map is trying to show (not colors, lines, etc.). See WP:ALT#Maps. --an odd name 22:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've now modified the text. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Map alts look good. --an odd name 00:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I added some named refs for you. Note that here are many more instances of identical refs that could benefit fro being named. And yes, I used the long format for the named refs. It's easier to use <CTRL> + H that way. ;-) • Ling.Nut

Thanks Ling.Nut. The consensus at WP:MESO has been against the use of named refs which is why I tend not to put them in articles as I write. However, there are (at the time I type this) over 200 footnotes so I'll go through and name some. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've run down the citations and inserted named refs throughout. I've tried to be consistent with naming but a few notes:

• With long and unwieldy Spanish-style surnames, I've abbreviated to initials e.g. Popenoe de Hatch & Schieber de Lavarreda becomes PH&SL.
• Where the same author has written multiple reports I've put in a 2-digit year no. separated from the page no. by the letter "p".
• I haven't split combined references, because multiple cite nos. tend to interrupt reading flow.

I hope this is acceptable. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Support A comprehensive article, seems to meet featured quality. A couple of minor issues. Shouldn't history come after Etymology, or at least before economy? Also in the long structure section I think that the left - right image alignment whilst complies with general guidelines I don't think works in this case. It really disrupts the list by having images on the left. I'd recommend right aligning those but using a double image type so the images needn't be so spread out. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for you support and your comments. In my articles on Maya sites I've tended to put things like Etymology, Economy, Location etc. before History because they tend to be shorter sections and nicely set up the general context of the site before diving into the nitty-gritty of historical detail, and may indeed allow the historical detail to make more sense knowing why the city was built where it was (for example).

I'm not sure what you mean by double images - is that a particular layout? I took plenty of photos on my last visit to the site specifically with the idea of uploading them onto Commons, I think there are 60-odd images on Commons and I probably have a few more I could upload. I've used 18 in the article, so I can always put more in. I just didn't want to overwhelm the article with photos just because I had them. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been playing with previews of image placement and shifting all images to the right makes the page look very unbalanced. Is the problem to do with the bullet points? If so, perhaps taking these out and leaving the alternating images might by a better alternative? Simon Burchell (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

By double/multiple images I mean placed together like in the Thikse Monastery article. In fact formatted that way you could probably fit in more images but arranged in a way that doesn't look too cluttered. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've taken out most of the bullets and put in a couple of extra photos doubled up as you suggested. I think it looks better now and most of the images can still be staggered left-right. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
  • Okay, the use of the Template:Smallcaps is incredibly annoying in the references. On my screen they render as an unitelligble blob. Please remove. The template itself says it should be used sparingly, and this is a case where it's not used well.
  • I have not reviewed the reliablity of the Spanish language sources, although a glance at the publishers seems to show that most are universities or museums, which should be reliable.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Ealdgyth. I've taken out the templates as requested. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• support I am not a big fan of the long lists of structures and altars. I think they could better be represented in their own article called for example List of Structures and Monuments at Takalik Abaj - I would leave summary sections in situ and have a "main article" link to the lists. This is my only reservation about an excellent article with good prose and good sourcing, and if other editors do not find this to be a problem I will be happy to support without this change being made. PS: one more nitpick - I think the lead could do a better job of summarising the article body. It can be quite a bit longer - per WP:LEAD and article this size typically has a lead of three or four paragraphs. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Maunus. I've expanded the intro somewhat but have left the lists in place, they come in the second half of the article so don't interupt the article's flow - they also give the opportunity to illiustrate the particular wealth of sculpture at the site with accompanying photos. However, if this is seen as a particular problem then I will reconsider. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Object Page ranges need to use a ndash not a hyphen. There is inconsistency in the authors in that some are list "Bob & Bill" and others "John and Jack", sometimes p. is used for multiple pages, otehr times pp. . The souces are tagged "Version digital" not needed and still in Spanish. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi YellowMonkey, I believe that between CJLL Wright and myself we've dealt with these concerns. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• support, Simon's done a superb job here and IMO the article readily meets or exceeds all the FA criteria. The treatment is comprehensive & I can think of no significant area in the extant modern literature abt the site that is left out or not covered in adequate depth. The sources used and authorities consulted are pretty much the most relevant and significant contemporary ones there are for this site. The article text fairly, proportionately and thoughtfully reflects the content & info of those sources (the ones I have access to, leastways, and have no cause for doubts about the rest). The citations are sound and prolific, there are no (non-mundane or self-evident) claims without backing cites that I can see. The prose is clear, appropriately pitched and straightforward. Any MOS-related issues seem all taken care of, and there appear to be no actionable items currently outstanding.

ps. Other than a handful of cosmetic tweaks neither I nor others of Simon's WP:MESO colleagues have been involved in putting this together. Kudos, Simon! --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks CJ. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Media review
  • All images and maps are CC-by-SA 3.0 with proper sources, look good, except:
  • File:Abaj Takalik Stela 5.jpg GNU Free Documentation License, looks good. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand this last. Is there a problem with this image? Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I see - different license, but still OK(?). Simon Burchell (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No, they are fine. Just writing them out so the FAC delegates know the images have been reviewed. Thanks! --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

*Comment Any way the section heading hierarchy can be changed to avoid having fourth-level headings? Also, go through and check that all sentence fragments in captions don't have periods (see MOS:CAPTION: "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely nominal groups (sentence fragments) that should not end with a period", bolding mine). Mm40 (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the lowest level of headings, or rather I've pushed them up a level. I've also taken out the full stops in those captions that don't amount to an actual discussion of the associated image. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, striked. Mm40 (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment Per WP:MOSIMAGES "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading." I see a few images in this article that are placed at the bottom of preceding sections. Please fix. Alt text and external links look good. +1 for under-represented topic area. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

All done. Simon Burchell (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: There are two images (the second map and the photo sitting at the end of the Early Classic section) that are right at the end of their own section. I haven't moved them because doing so does strange things to the headers. Simon Burchell (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments I've only read about half of the article - I'll finish up tomorrow. Here is my first set of comments.

• Could you put in a pronunciation guide or a recording of the site's name? I wasn't sure how to say it.

• Maunus has kindly put in the English/K'iche' phonetics and I've dropped in a recording of the pronunciation. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• long sequence of sculpture in a variety of styles - "long sequence" is a bit confusing - I'm not sure what the phrase is supposed to mean here.

• changed "long sequence to "persistent tradition". Simon Burchell (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• That is clearer to me. Awadewit (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Takalik Abaj was a sizeable city with the principal architecture divided into four groups spread across nine terraces. While some of these were natural features, others were artificial constructions requiring an enormous investment in labour and materials - It doesn't quite make sense to describe the architecture as divided into groups - do you mean the structures or the plan of the city?

• Changed to "clustered into" - i.e. physical groupings of structures. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• More precise, yes. Awadewit (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• The "Ethnicity" section seems to be mostly about language - were these coterminous for the Maya or should the section be renamed "Languages"?

For the Maya, the broad ethnic grouping is pretty much determined by the language they speak (or increasingly in the modern world, by the language their parents spoke). Simon Burchell (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to try and rephrase that section to emphasise ethnicity rather than language if I may? ·Maunus·ƛ· 10:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Be my guest, although I'd prefer it if the language info was still included. Any chance you could take care of the pronunciation query above? I used to speak some K'iche' but I wouldn't be able to write it out phonetically (or even English or Spanish for that matter). Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've done both now, I hope it is acceptable. I tried to emphasise that speculations about ethnic and linguistic affiliation of the population of Takalik Abaj is inferred from conclusions about the archaeological data. ·Maunus·ƛ· 10:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Maunus, that's great. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm all curious about the chronicles - is there any article about those we could link to? Awadewit (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Could you add a few sentences on the signficance of obsidian? I wasn't sure why it was being discussed in the "Economy and trade" section.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Excellent! That is so helpful to readers like me who know very little about ancient Mesoamerican history. Awadewit (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Ceramics from this period belong to the local Ocosito tradition - Could you explain this tradition a bit more? What are its characteristics?

• Done (at first mention in History intro, before the chronological table). Simon Burchell (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• the Late Preclassic ceramics in Takalik Abaj were strongly related to the Miraflores Ceramic Sphere that included Escuintla, the Valley of Guatemala and western El Salvador. - Could you explain this tradition a bit more? What are its characteristics?

• Done - brief description and distribution. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• In this period, the ceramics show a change with the entry of the highland Solano style - Could you explain this tradition a bit more? What are its characteristics?

• Done. I've also added a bit about the Naranjo style, since I'm sure you would have asked anyway! ;) Simon Burchell (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• The ceramics sound so colorful! Awadewit (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• The verb tense of the article needs to be checked throughout - it is not consistent and sometimes the wrong tense has been chosen.

• I've trawled through the whole article and changed the present tense to past when talking about the history, anything relating to the current archaeological remains I've left in present tense. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to reading the rest of the article! Awadewit (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've now read the rest of the article, and here are my comments.

• In the description of each group, would it be possible to explain when and how each group was occupied. The "North Group" is described quite well - could the same kind of description be added to the "Central" and "West" group?

• I've not been able to find much more information, nonetheless I have expanded these descriptions somewhat. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think a little summary description of the "South" group needs to be added to the beginning of the "Site description and layout" section.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• These channels were also used to carry water to the residential areas of the city,[66] and it is possible that the channels also served a ritual purpose - What kind of ritual?

• Linked to the rain god. Added. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• There are two methods of construction used for the water channels. Clay channels date from the Middle Preclassic while stone-lined channels date from the Late Preclassic through to the Classic - Is there speculation as to why the building material changed?

• I've rechecked the source and as a matter of fact there is - duly expanded. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Structure 11 has been excavated. It was covered with rounded boulders held together with clay.[19] It is located to the west of the plaza in the southern area of the Central Group. - I don't have a good grasp of what Structure 11 is from this description - could more be added? (I thought Structure 12 was a good description, for example.)

• I've made an exhaustive search of my sources and I have no further information on Structure 11. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Further monuments line the east side, one of which may be the head of a crocodilian - Should this be "crocodile"? If not, could the word be linked?

• Crocodilian and not crocodile because the species cannot be determined from the sculpture - it could be an alligator or caiman. I've linked to Crocodilia. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Structure 34 is in the West Group, at the eastern corner of Terrace 6 - Could more description be added so the reader has a sense of what these remains look like?

• It's probably a mound, but I don't find that specifically mentioned so can't put it in. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Structures 38, 39, 42 and 43 are joined by low platforms on the east side of a plaza on Terrace 7, aligned north-south. Structures 40, 47 and 48 are on south, west and north sides of this plaza. Structures 49, 50, 51, 52 and 53 form a small group on the west side of the terrace, bordered on the north by Terrace 9. Structure 42 is the tallest structure in the North Group, measuring about 11.5 metres (38 ft) high. - What kinds of structures are these? More description is needed.

• All I can find is that they are mounds, which I've added. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Well, that's something! Awadewit (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Structure 46 is at the edge of Terrace 8 in the North Group and dates from the Terminal Classic through to the Postclassic. The west side of the structure has been cut by a modern road. - Could more description be added so the reader has a sense of what these remains look like?

• Again, only that it is a mound. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Structure 54 is built upon Terrace 8, to the north of Structure 46, in the North Group. It is surrounded by an open area without mounds that was probably a mixed residential and agricultural area. It dates from the Terminal Classic through to the Postclassic - Could more description be added so the reader has a sense of what these remains look like?

• It's probably covered by coffee plantations, but I can't find any confirmation of that - no further detail other than what is already there. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Structure 68 is in the West Group. A part of the western side of the structure has been cut by a modern road - Could more description be added so the reader has a sense of what these remains look like?

• I've been able to give a little more detail but not much. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• The great quantity of early Maya sculpture and the presence of early examples of Maya hieroglyphic writing suggest that the site played an important part in the development of Maya ideology - Could you add a few sentences explaining the development? What ideas do archaeologists think the site promoted, etc.?

• Expanded somewhat. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Altar 1 is found at the base of Stela 1, it is rectangular in shape with a carving on its side - Do we know what the carving depicts?

• The source translates as "a carved molding" - no further info and no illustration, I've put "carved molding" into the article and wikilinked. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• I assume that if location or style are not mentioned in the descriptions of the monuments, they are unknown?

• That is right - I used as much information as I had available...which is why there are jumps in numbering, where I simply don't have any information regarding the "missing" monuments etc. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• It might be worth defining stela at the beginning of the "Inventory of stela" section.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have a question about the sources from the Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala. What is this exactly? Is it a conference paper? Published proceedings of a conference? In my field, English literature, conference papers are not the best sources, but archaeology may be quite different in that regard.

• These are a collection of archaeological field reports published to coincide with an annual archaeological conference in Guatemala city and are very highly regarded sources (in fact it would be difficult to find better sources - these are by the leading archaeologists working in Guatemala, and many include excavation diagrams, results etc.) These papers are regularly cited in the scholarly journals, books on the subject etc. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Great, thanks. That makes me feel better. ;) Awadewit (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• With regards to the list issue raised by Manus, I am of two minds. I can see a much more concise and focused article with the lists split off, but the scholar in me wants the lists in this article, as list articles tend to lack the context that this one provides.

• I would rather keep the lists, because they do illustrate the wealth of sculpture at the site. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to supporting the article soon - I found it quite fascinating. Awadewit (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm glad you found it interesting! I've pulled up as much extra information as I can but in many cases there is just no further information available. I hope that the little extra info that I've managed to pull out goes some way towards satisfying your curiosity. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Pending Awadewit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support I'm happy to support this article. It is clear, comprehensive, and well-researched. Awadewit (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Awadewit! Simon Burchell (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a serious lack of WP:NBSPs on words joined with numbers; these are needed to prevent dangling numbers at line breaks. They aren't needed at the beginning of lines (there's a lot of that), since those won't wrap anyway, but they should be filled in within the text. I left samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've gone through the text and filled them in. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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 02:26, 7 February 2010 [20].

---

Rumours

Nominator(s): RB88 (T) 01:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel like I've written a Jackie Collins novel.

Come on oldies, support. (Although you probably won't after I've just called you oldies.) RB88 (T) 01:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Media review: Single "free"-licensed image had incorrect copyright statement but was corrected. Copyrighted album cover and 19-second excerpt of Don't Stop are used as fair use material; their fair use rationales are justifiable. Jappalang (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• More descriptive alt text on the second image will probably be needed. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Added more description about performers. Should be OK now. Cheers. RB88 (T) 00:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment I'm too young to remember this first time round, but I've heard good things about it, and the article's looking good too. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. Before my time too but definitely worth the effort. Also, I kept the lead as it was because it's pretty tight and flowing. Hope you don't mind. I look forward to more feedback. In the meantime, try and listen to it from start and finish. ;) RB88 (T) 00:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment I removed "Grammy Award-winning" because it was POV as a qualifier there (you call it award winning before even calling it an album). I'll try to squeeze in a full copy-edit soon, but until then, try to reduce passive voice, especially in the Studio sessions and Composition sections. (a search for "was" will point what sentences need fixing). Also, I am hesitant to consider this article as comprehensive as The Complete Guide to Their Music seems to be an important source not used.—indopug (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Complete Guide is some guy's interpretation of their music and lyrics, thus Further reading. Stop clutching at straws Wesley-style. Fleetwood Mac in the Classic Albums and Rumours DVD-A are much more qualified to talk about these things don't you think. Plus Rikky Rooksby has not got much more to say than what's already been summated in the article. I'll have a look at the passive though. RB88 (T) 03:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ended up using it as a streamlining source, but not for musical elements though as it'd be POV. RB88 (T) 20:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Grammy Album of the Year is important enough to be given a line in the lead. The 2004 reissue isn't.—indopug (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Course it is. Remasters are integral parts of old albums as the sound and quality is changed. Plus this one actually changed the tracklist and had a whole cd of the demos of each song (hence a summation of Track listing in the lead). RB88 (T) 03:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Update Sorted out the passive. Some is needed however in every written piece for varied prose. If you have any more issues, please bring them here. RB88 (T) 03:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I am old enough to remember this, first time round (just). I remember thinking they were all rather old - some were in their thirties!! My detailed comments on the article were given at peer review, all addressed, and I am happy to support the article's promotion. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Brian. It wouldn't be in this position as an article without your input. And age is just a number etc etc. It didn't hinder FMac that's for sure. RB88 (T) 20:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - Rafablu88 has worked through all the points I raised, comments which I've moved to the talk page. Outstanding (minor) points are left below. I've made a fairly comprehensive review and, with a bit of copy-editing remaining, am generally happy that this is FA standard. Parrot of Doom 17:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Fleetwood has noted that everyone made "tremendous emotional sacrifices" just to attend studio work." - when did he note this?
  • I don't know, and to be honest I don't think it matters. The content is more important. Anyhow, the verb tense shows it's retrospective. RB88 (T) 19:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Well I tend to think that whenever opinion is given on history, by those involved, its always useful to try and find a date - even if its just dated to the publication date of the source, with a footnote for clarity. Parrot of Doom 23:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I disagree here. It doesn't matter if he said in 1980, 1990, or 2000. The verb makes it clear it's some time after the event. Plus adding the sources year when it doesn't give the actual date of the quote is a bit futile. People can just click on the cite and see the publication date. I think adding years everywhere tends to ruin the prose or the timeframe flow. RB88 (T) 23:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Ok, it won't keep me from arguing but it would be helpful to know when he said it. Parrot of Doom 00:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
          • LOL, the book does exactly what I've done, i.e. use the quotes to inform the prose and the timeframe without a specific date. As I said, I don't think it's that essential to know the date, only the content. RB88 (T) 00:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Fleetwood Mac's main lyricists—Buckingham, Christine McVie and Nicks—worked individually on specific songs, but sometimes shared lines with the band." - written lines, or sung lines? The former is implied, so perhaps "composed (individual?) lines" might be better?
  • "worked individually on specific songs, but sometimes shared lyrics with each other" - is that "hey, I've got this great lyric for your song!", or "let me see if I can help you with that song, and write you a lyric"? Parrot of Doom 17:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Pretty much both. As the rest of the section explains, with examples. RB88 (T) 04:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: A few points:

1. Origins section, first paragraph: I'm not keen on "eponymous" instead of the name of the album. It substitutes cleverness for clarity.
   • Fair enough.
2. It gave them radio exposure. Had they not had any before?
   • Used extensive.
3. No need for a colon in "The line-up at the time was: guitarist ..." "Consisted of" would be better than "was."
   • I think the sentence would be too long and convoluted without it. The colon is a necessary break.
     • Actually, I think SlimVirgin is correct. Colons usually follow clauses that are complete sentences; "The line-up at the time was" is not complete. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
       • Alrighty then. RB88 (T) 23:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
4. You introduce divorce before saying they were married. I wonder if the issue of emotional turmoil should have its own section, with some introduction to the characters to that readers can keep the names straight. Understanding this paragraph would be quite tricky for people who didn't already know the issues. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
   • I put the marriage before. I don't think more detail is needed. The article is about the album after all, and not the band. The two paragraphs are a nice summary and flow well, i.e. last album, hit single, line-up, explaining the situation of each, press issues, start of studio, logistics. RB88 (T) 20:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Binksternet, more to come. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

1. The starting of the second sentence "Recorded at US locations during 1976" has several problems: the abbreviation "US" comes before "United States" is introduced, and "U.S." (with two periods) is the abbreviation settled upon by WikiProjects I'm involved in, especially the large and exacting Milhist Project. The locations themselves were in Florida and California: perhaps the sentence can be recast as "Recorded in Florida and California during 1976..." The comma after Richard Dashut is not needed.

   Sorted out the whole paragraph. Also, British English uses US (check the BBC or The Guardian's MOS). RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

2. I love how the word "rumours" comes in during the discussion of the aftermath of the previous album. Nice!

   That only happened yesterday after edits, but I did notice it. RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

3. The Dashut quote "the craft of record making" must be referenced.

   All cites cover all the preceding material up to the previous cite or a paragraph break. RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

   No, I don't agree. The guideline at Wikipedia:Citing sources#When quoting someone clearly states that the "citation should be placed either directly after the quotation" or "after a sentence or phrase that introduces the quotation." Not at the end of the paragraph. Binksternet (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

4. The phrase "he and Christine McVie jammed with guitar and piano" indicates which man? Dashut? Later, the word "latter" is clumsy.

   Added Buckingham, but I don't think latter is that clumsy, especially since it immediately follows the sentence with the two names, i.e. there shouldn't be any ambiguity. RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

5. The phrase "extensive of cocaine" should be "extensive use of cocaine".

   Done. RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

6. Buckingham's quote "the whole being more than the sum of the parts" must be referenced.

   All cites cover all the preceding material up to the previous cite or a paragraph break. RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

   See Wikipedia:Citing sources#When quoting someone. Binksternet (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

7. The wording of "more abstract with the instrumentals in her songs" leaves the reader wondering what "her songs" were. Perhaps it could be "the songs on which she sang lead" or "the songs which she wrote" or something similar.

   Done. RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

8. From personal knowledge gleaned from the audio engineer grapevine, the phrase "damaged by the Record Plant's recording machine" is not precise. What happened to the multi-track master tape is that the main one was wa-a-ay overused—it went back and forth past the playback heads more times than in any previous album mixdown, and became worn out. Fleetwood Mac were too undecided about what the mixdown should sound like, and they spent too much time trying different mixes. When they finally settled on a mix, the tape was sounding dull from the loss of high frequencies from its wear and tear against the playback head. The multi-track backup tape (a one-generation down copy) was used to mix the recording session tracks down to the final stereo master. All this means is that the final consumer version is one generation removed from the original—a very slight diminishing of detail along with a very slight addition of tape hiss. The Record Plant's tape machine was not responsible... such a problem would have occurred at any recording studio given Fleetwood Mac's indecisive state at that time.

   The sources don't mention much detail on this, apart from mangling or "chewing", hence damage. And I can only go on them. But it would have been nice to add a bit more. As an expert, would you have any engineers' trade publications that might have mentioned it in more detail, even if it was just in passing? RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

   Here is one technical mention of the multitrack tape dulling over time, with details about transients etc., though the author doesn't name the album. This one is the bonanza, an article in the recording industry rag Sound On Sound which talks about tape decay and the backup safety master. Say, I learned something new from that article: the backup tape was the same generation of basic tracks, so only the vocal overdubs transferred to it were down one generation. Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for that. Added the info in summarised, layman's terms. And also added a bit more here and there from it. RB88 (T) 22:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

9. The sentence which starts "The front cover features a stylised shot" is in the present tense, but the paragraph is talking about 1977. Is the past tense more appropriate?

   Using the past tense might suggest that the release is no longer in existence, when it is. But, I can change it if you still feel the same. RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

   Let's hear from other editors on this. Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

   Alright. I don't think it's that big a deal though. RB88 (T) 22:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

   I think the present tense is better, as if it was in the past tense one may think that the album cover was changed. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 18:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

10. I jumped in and changed a bunch of wording in the studio sessions section. My familiarity with the subject matter made me think I could raise the technical accuracy of the section without making it too opaque for non-technical sorts. I corrected some wikilinks that didn't point to the optimum target, and I changed some wording about Sausalito and Berkeley, places I've been to on countless occasions. Let me know if the results don't satisfy. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that. Some of the stuff needed a bit more. But in general, I simplified most of it as it seemed too technical. Even I struggled to fully understand it sometimes. It's better to keep it simple and summative rather than too expert-y. RB88 (T) 04:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
      • We-e-ell, I thought I would make all those changes so that we wouldn't be faced with supporting each one here on the FAC page, but I see that your simplifications have fundamentally changed some of the meanings that I had intended:
        • I wrote that the ladies stayed at a "condominium near the town's main thoroughfare along the waterfront" but you trimmed it back to "condominium in the city centre." Sausalito is one of those cities all on edge, where the so-called "centre" is shoved up against one border. As such, how can the popular waterfront shopping and restaurant district, the location of city offices, be the center of the city? It is instead along the waterfront, at the extreme eastern edge of the city.
        • I changed a phrase to this: "studio's lodge among the private residences perched on the steep hillside to the west" after which you restored it to "studio's lodge in the adjacent hills." The studio's lodge was on the slope of Sausalito, not in the adjacent hills. Sausalito has a tiny strip of flat land near sea level—the majority of its area is on a steep slope rising up to the west of the waterfront. Lots and lots of private homes are on this steep slope; it is the main residential district. The other two residential districts are the much smaller houseboat berth area and the waterfront area. The reference "DVD"... does it specify the lodge's address? If memory serves, the recording studio's lodge was simply one of the large private homes dotting the steep slope of Sausalito, not something farther away.
          • Well, I can only go on the sources available sorry. Everything is very vague. The waterfront was mentioned but no specific location was given for the women's place. The men's place only details "the hills" and that's it. I think it's enough info tbh without going on too much detail. RB88 (T) 07:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I wrote "monitor loudspeakers without extended high frequency response" but you scaled it back to "poor quality monitor loudspeakers". The source says "it had very dead speakers" which does not mean "poor quality" in pro audio; "dead" has a number of meanings but when applied to loudspeakers very often means "lack of high freqs." The Record Plant had some classic high quality studio monitors which did not have extended high frequency response up to where Caillat wished it to be. Aside from the attenuated HF response, the speakers in the Record Plant were spot-on for voice-range frequencies, and very neutral, not colored, within their intended bandwidth. They were very high quality but with a design goal at variance to Caillat's expectations.
          • I used Caillat's original "dead speakers" since you say "very often means". If he didn't mention it himself, then it's always better to quote instead of crossing the WP:OR line. RB88 (T) 07:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Let's go one step closer to the original and quote Caillat's "very dead speakers". One of the possible meanings of "dead speakers" is that they don't work at all; not the case here. Instead, Caillat used the phrase "very dead speakers" which, perversely, isn't used to mean non-working speakers. Instead, "very dead speakers" goes over the line into overstatement, to describe loudspeakers that are working but are not "brilliant" or "bright" or full range with appropriately extended highs. Binksternet (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I wrote "From the beginning, Buckingham took charge of the studio sessions to carefully build "a pop album"–he decided not to record all of the tracks together as live takes" but you restored the earlier "From the beginning, Buckingham took charge of the studio sessions to make "a pop album" and decided not to record tracks as live takes." The biggest problem I have with your version is that every "take" recorded was "live" for Rumours—all of them. There were no sequencers or drum machines recording "non-live" tracks. It works like this: you sing or play your part "live" in real time, you get recorded in real time. Your performance is "live", but all by yourself, with the other musicians canned on tape. To make the point intended in the reference, the sentence should say that Buckingham imagined that none of the tracks would be recorded the classic blues-rock way in which all the musicians would gather at the recording studio and play along with each other at the same time. Instead, Lindsay was thinking that each musician would record alone so that the parts would be very much isolated from each other for maximum creative scope in the subsequent mixdown.
          • Again, I can only go on the sources. The info came straight from the horse's mouth and that's what I put. In the end, I've decided to remove it. It doesn't add much and if, as you suggest, there is reader ambiguity, then it's better to err on the safe side. RB88 (T) 07:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I wrote "Baffles were placed around the drum kit and around John McVie" but you took out one word to restore "Baffles were placed around the drum kit and John McVie." Your wording puts baffles around a nucleus of two musicians who are unseparated from each other. My version puts baffles around two musicians, each one separated from the other by baffles. My version is what the Sound On Sound article states.
          • Done. RB88 (T) 07:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
        • About your version of the vari-speed oscillator wizard, you wrote "which played the Sausalito tapes in his left ear and the safety masters in his right" but both tapes were from Sausalito. Both the over-used master tapes and the pristine safety tapes were recorded in Sausalito, simultaneously on twin recorders, with the safeties put immediately in storage after the tracking sessions. Then you wrote "he converged their respective speeds and make-ups, especially in relation to the drum tracks." Yes, he converged their respective speeds, but what do you mean by "make-ups" or "especially in relation to the drum tracks." All the best tracks were getting "converged" during this operation, with none more important than the other, none "especially". Two of the drum tracks, the snare and hi-hat, were being used to line the tapes up in time, but these two were not made more important thereby—they just provided excellent timing information.
        • Just a little FYI: each 2-inch 24-track tape on its large aluminum reel would hold one normal-length pop song. Each song had a master tape and an initially identical safety tape. The guy with the VSO and headphones mixed each pair together using the best tracks from each.
          • This is where's it's at now based on your expert view: "A specialist was hired to rectify the Sausalito tapes using a vari-speed oscillator. Through a pair of headphones which played the damaged tapes in his left ear and the safety master recordings in his right, he converged their respective speeds aided by the timings provided by the snare and hi-hat audio tracks." Good? RB88 (T) 07:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Finally, one observation unrelated to my wording changes: the sentence "The album's working title in Sausalito was Yesterday's Dreams" seems wholly out of place in the paragraph where it now appears. Perhaps it can be moved down a paragraph or two, and be incorporated more skilfully into the flow of the paragraph. Binksternet (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Done. Used as a starting sentence. RB88 (T) 07:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. My concerns have been addressed; the wording of the studio sessions section satisfies me. The photo of Sausalito is nice, but I think I might try to pop by 2200 Bridgeway and snap a photo of the famed recording studio, now closed and held by a bank. Has anybody seen this little video of The Plant made by Mick Fleetwood last June? If you have enough cash, you can buy The Plant from the bank, with the audio equipment inside a bargaining point. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, on just the MOS matter about leaving direct quotes with no footnote at the end of the sentence which introduces each one. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#When quoting someone. A little fix! Binksternet (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I've just realised this and am a bit shocked that you've gone from a support to an object based on a minor redundancy. As I explained, all citations cover ALL the preceding material up to the previous citation or a paragraph break, INCLUDING ALL QUOTATIONS WITHIN THAT SPACE. It's a bit redundant to put the same number over and over, sentence after sentence. It also inhibits readership. RB88 (T) 20:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is a minor point, but one that factors directly in the FA requirement that the article follow MOS. Because they can hold up a FAC, no MOS matter is minor. The MOS appears to contradict your wish to keep the text uncluttered when it demands a footnote following the end quotation mark of a quote or at the end of a sentence introducing a quote. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I think it's implicit that the cites cover certain material. I have often been told at FAC to remove consequent duplicates, even when quotes are present. It's just intuitive. I don't see what fears you have or what fears will be alleviated by me coping and pasting a ref a few times. I mean you could have even done it yourself. I'm a bit puzzled why it warranted a support to oppose. RB88 (T) 22:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
        • The guideline at Wikipedia:Citing sources#When quoting someone states that the "citation should be placed either directly after the quotation" or "after a sentence or phrase that introduces the quotation." I don't see the implicit part you mention. I have no objection to you, and the article is excellent, but all FAs must follow MOS. It is a simple fix. You stated your belief that a footnote covering a paragraph should not follow each quote in a paragraph which is why I did not fix it myself, and why I changed my !vote to oppose. I'm not going to fix something against your wishes. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
          • DONE. RB88 (T) 23:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

*Support. This addition of some 70 named refs seems a lot like it should be listed as an example at Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I do not think you need to lower the article's readability by littering it with unasked-for footnotes. I will remove the ones I think excessive, and I will then support the article for FA. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• • I wasn't disrupting Wikipedia. I was merely following the consistent citations rule and leading it to its logical conclusion, a ref for every sentence. I'm quite upset you've removed them. I want my article to overzealously adhere to every single rule in the book. I am sick and tired of rationality and intuition and I do think our readers are idiot sheep. Thanks for the support anyway. RB88 (T) 09:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Caption: "Nicks and Buckingham, here photographed in 2003, became integral members of Fleetwood Mac following the success of Fleetwood Mac in 1975 and Rumours two year later." Really--"following"? No. They wrote most of the songs on Fleetwood Mac and performed on all of them. Surely they were "integral members" of the group by early 1975, when that album was recorded. DocKino (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you're missing the point here. It's not denying they were members before Fleetwood Mac. It's merely saying that the success they had crafting songs for both albums, which sold well, made them crucial to Fleetwood Mac's songwriting. When Fleetwood hired them before Fleetwood Mac, this was not apparent and they were just back-up. In fact, only Buckingham was wanted as a guitarist but he brought Nicks along as well. RB88 (T) 18:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Excuse me? If I was really missing the point, I suppose you wouldn't have bothered to rewrite the caption, as you did. Care to apologize for your sour attitude?
    • Whatever, friend. I'm afraid it is still you who are missing the point. And the point is that you have still written a very poor caption. Fleetwood Mac consists of 11 songs—Buckingham and/or Nicks wrote or cowrote 6 of them. Nicks was the sole writer (and lead singer) of the album's third single. Rumours consists of 11 songs—Buckingham and/or Nicks wrote or cowrote 7 of them. But you'd have us understand that Buckingham and Nicks were not "integral to the band's songwriting" during the conception and recording of Fleetwood Mac, not "integral to the band's songwriting" after the successful release of that album, and not "integral to the band's songwriting" during the conception and recording of Rumours. OK. I'd say you've got a serious blind spot when it comes to the quality of your writing and I expect that I will find significant 1a deficiencies as I read through the rest of the article. See you again soon... DocKino (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Bloody hell. Didn't realise a single sentence would get you to find straws (and a thesaurus) to keep you warm (see below). I even changed it a bit, but I'll reword it if you're still sensitive. RB88 (T) 23:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Fixed by changing ONE measly word. What an an erroneous, amiss, askew, awry, defective, fallacious, false, faulty, flawed, inaccurate, inexact, invalid, misguided, specious, spurious, unfounded, unsound, untrue mistake that was! RB88 (T) 23:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Just want to make sure we're now communicating productively. Here is how the caption read when I first suggested it was problematic:

Nicks and Buckingham, here photographed in 2003, became integral members of Fleetwood Mac following the success of Fleetwood Mac in 1975 and Rumours two year later

And here is the caption now:

Nicks and Buckingham, here photographed in 2003, were integral to Fleetwood Mac's songwriting on Fleetwood Mac in 1975 and Rumours two year later

• Just one question, tovarisch: Was I, in fact, "missing the point" or is the caption substantially more accurate now?

Well, as I said, I changed it cos you seemed a bit touchy. What you could have done when I said I saw no inherent problem in the meaning was: 1. change it yourself (and I really wouldn't have been bothered) or 2. explain rationally how you wanted it to be phrased (like all the other nice editors who have contributed so far). You did neither, and instead wrote the stuff above and below. Seemed a bit excessive. RB88 (T) 04:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment Fortunately, the problematic caption (and the problematic obliviousness to the problem) discussed above is not representative of the general quality of the article's writing. Nonetheless, the article is filled with awkward, infelicitous, and unclear phrasing. It is not quite up to our literary standard at this point. Here are a few examples, just from the lead:

• "Rumours is Fleetwood Mac's most successful release after a Grammy Award win and sales of over 40 million copies worldwide." Surely "with" rather than "after". As sales are more customarily associated with "success" in this context, their mention should probably precede that of the Grammy Award. Instead of "Grammy Award win"--which is unnecessarily (even if only mildly) redundant--perhaps state exactly what the Grammy Award was for.
  • "A Grammy Award winner, Rumours is Fleetwood Mac's most successful release with sales of over 40 million copies worldwide." RB88 (T) 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• "For the album, the band wanted to expand on the success of the 1975 record Fleetwood Mac, but struggled with emotional upheaval before and during the recording sessions." Unnecessary verbiage: "For the album". Rather overobvious verbiage: "The band wanted to expand on [the success of...]" (the informative point here is simply that Fleetwood Mac was successful, the rest is gaseous: it is the norm for any band that has a successful album to want to follow it up with a more successful one--apparent exceptions like Tusk are worthy of note, but this is pabulum). Awkward phrasing: "struggled with emotional upheaval" (could probably be cut, as it conceptually repeats content of next sentence; alternately the repetitive material in the next sentence could be trimmed). The "but" is also misplaced--as you go on to explain, that "emotional upheaval" contributed to the album's power.
  • Removed "for the album". As you have proven yourself with your Tusk comment, expanding on success is not 100% given in the history of music. The norm is your point of view. Sometimes, bands like to be extremely experimental to nullify mainstream success. The expansion of success has to be made clear for non-norm experts, but I added a "commercial" qualifier to the sentence. The rest was reworded in conjunction with the comment below. RB88 (T) 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• "The studio time for Rumours was marked by interpersonal strife and hedonistic behaviour as all Fleetwood Mac members went through breakups; the lyrics were informed by these personal relationship failures." Infelicitous phrase: "studio time" (perhaps "the Rumours sessions" or "the Rumours recording sessions"). Awkward phrasing: "all Fleetwood Mac members went through breakups" (perhaps "each band member went through [or, experienced] a romantic breakup"). Underestablished subject: "the lyrics" (albums consist of "songs" or "compositions" or such--those, in turn, include lyrics; the leap demanded by the current phrasing is awkward).
  • (Maybe something along these lines: Their most recent album, Fleetwood Mac, had been very successful. In contrast to that record's largely harmonious recording sessions, the band entered the studio for Rumours rent by interpersonal strife. Each member went through a romantic breakup during the sessions. Their relationship failures informed the lyrics of most of the songs they recorded. ["Most" to accommodate "You Make Loving Fun".])
    • No offence, but this reads very poorly, with no flow. It has awkward phrasing, superfluous material, and infelicitous wording, whatever that is. All in all, not bad, but not good. I went with: "The band wanted to expand on the commercial success of the 1975 record Fleetwood Mac, but struggled with relationship breakups before recording started. The Rumours studio sessions were marked by hedonistic behaviour and interpersonal strife between Fleetwood Mac members; the album's lyrics were informed by these experiences." RB88 (T) 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• "Influenced by pop music, the compositions were moulded through a combination of acoustic and electric instruments." Surely, many of the songs were more than "influenced" by pop music; rather, a substantial portion of the album is pop music, or straddles the line between pop and rock, or...something a bit stronger than pop "influenced". Awkward phrasing: "compositions were molded through...instruments" (a very odd construction--do you actually want to say something here directly about the compositions or about their arrangements?).
  • The album is not pop music, merely influenced by it. No critic in the history of mankind has ever called it pop music. "Pop" as in popular or popular culture maybe, but not musically. Pop rock is a subgenre of rock music. The compositions phrase is fine. It summarises the composition section nicely without going into much detail, which should and must be reserved for the article text. See WP:LEAD. RB88 (T) 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• "The mixing process slowed the creation of Rumours". Infelicitous phrase: "slowed the creation of" (perhaps "delayed the completion of").
  • Done. RB88 (T) 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• "Rumours garnered critical acclaim and commercial attention." What does "commercial attention" mean? I submit: nothing.
  • I submit: You're right. RB88 (T) 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• "Praise centred on its production values and melodies". Confusing use of jargon: "production values" (are we talking about the quality or the style of the production? Or both?) Another awkward leap: "its...melodies" (again, like lyrics, songs "naturally" have 'em...albums can have 'em, but the phrasing must be adjusted to bridge the conceptual gap with some elegance).
  • "Production quality and harmonies". RB88 (T) 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• "The record has aided the development of musical acts in different genres." Very infelicitous phrasing: "aided the development of musical acts". Albums don't "aid development". On either side of the Atlantic, this is an unidiomatic notion. An album may "inspire". Other acts may "build on its innovations". There are several possibilities. "Aid development" is not among them.
  • Done. RB88 (T) 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is just the lead, which appears to be representative of the article as a whole. The writing is not bad. Nor, however, is it good. I believe a careful, sensitive line edit is called for. DocKino (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• • I'll fix/reply to these ASAP. For the record, Parrot of Doom, an extremely experienced copy editor and writer of FA classic rock albums, is going through the article bit by bit with only minor issues to bring up (mostly about word placement). But, you have your thesaurus handy so maybe you'll find some more. RB88 (T) 23:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I thank you for the compliment. I've still got some sections to go, once that's done I plan to do a copyedit of the whole thing and then support. Its only the prose letting this down right now, and it isn't far off. This is a very well researched article. Parrot of Doom 00:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, just wanted to say that the lead rarely, if ever, is a true representation of the whole article, which while still summative, is more historical and relies on sources and citations. See WP:LEAD for crucial differences and also maybe get together with User:Indopug who has never liked my leads but has never found massive error in the actual texts. Intros tend to be acquired tastes (as you have proven). RB88 (T) 23:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a and 1c. Don't get me wrong—it's good! I only reviewed from Composition-down. I found several prose glitches and some monotonous sections that succumb to the ever-popular tendency toward prosaic listing of review scores and rankings without any real cohesiveness. The bigger thing that stuck in my craw was the way some sources have been used; details and other issues below:
  • Class Albums DVD: General lack of information. Neither the web site for the company who made the DVD nor Amazon provide any substantive information on its producers or creative staff. Who interviewed the band members for the DVD? Are they journalists? Additionally, each time the source is used, we aren't told who on the DVD said what, to back up the claim. See the item below about Buckingham's guitar work "dominating" the album. That statement is sourced to the DVD, but who said it makes a huge difference in context. The narrator? Mick Fleetwood? Buckingham himself? For each use of this source, we need the track and time, and if it is from a quotation, whose quotation.
    • I don't know how familiar you are with the Classic Albums series, but essentially it is a camera pointed at member(s) while they chat, discuss, and narrate what happened. All opinions are attributed to whoever said it, facts on the other hand are not, as usual. Give me an hour or so and I'll put the timings if you're that bothered. Been meaning to rewatch it. RB88 (T) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
      • DONE. RB88 (T) 02:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Same comments for the Making Of DVD.
    • The Making Of section of the DVD-Audio of Rumours has no timings per se, unlike the songs themselves. It involves clickable menus and band discussions for each song. Hence, it would be a bit fruitless and redundant to cite "Song 1 Menu", "Song 2 Menu" etc, when it's pretty evident where the info came from for each track. So, I've left this as it was in the refs. RB88 (T) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Why are we not providing page numbers to books used as sources? Again, need to identify where in the source you got the information so it's verifiable.
    • The page numbers were clearly there. I originally had a ref section like now but thought it was a bit clumsy for a handful of pages only cited once. But there's no accounting for aesthetics I guess. RB88 (T) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Buckingham's guitar work and Christine McVie's use of Fender Rhodes piano and Hammond B-3 organ dominate most tracks." Ah.. is this sourced to the DVD? It's somewhat of a dubious, if not bold claim, considering the musical variety represented on the album. In what way does Buckingham's guitar work "dominate"? This requires exploration and details, and probably secondary sourcing. Who on the DVD said that?
    • DONE. Reworded, but no one said. It's summarised from the instrument list in each song menu (see above comment for more info). RB88 (T) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "includes both acoustic and tack piano" How is a tack piano not an acoustic piano?
    • DONE. RB88 (T) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "By March, the album had sold over ten million copies worldwide, with over eight million in the US alone." The "with" conjunction is clumsy and ambiguous here. Do you mean "including", or "plus"? Please revise.
    • DONE. RB88 (T) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • In "Critical", what is the reason for name-dropping all the reviewers? I could see if they are someone notable, but do readers really need that piece of information that (Joe Shmoe) of (publication) wrote something? I'm sure Joe appreciates the attribution, but why can't we leave it for those who follow the source? It feels like we are forcing the names in there to keep active voice.
    • For someone so worried about WP:V, I find this comment alarming. One of the founding stones of Wikipedia is that we MUST always attribute opinion. Saying it was the publication's, it's erroneous and violates WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. RB88 (T) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "interplay between the three vocalists" Between two, among three.
    • DONE. RB88 (T) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "The Guardian collated worldwide data in 1997 from a range of renowned critics, artists, and radio DJs, which placed" Who placed seems more natural here, doesn't it?
    • DONE. RB88 (T) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Produced by Mick Fleetwood, it contained each song of the original covered by a different act influenced by the album." Clunky.. I had to read it 3 times before it was clear.
    • DONE. RB88 (T) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Second para of Legacy: I see this trend a lot in pop culture articles, where we make a para out of long lists of review scores or chart placements. It makes for dull prose, to be sure.
    • I would say it's dullER prose, but the key operative is "prose". At both WP:ALBUMS and WP:ALTMUSIC, we're always encouraging more and more prose for any section that be written rather than tables or lists which frankly are for FLC. I used as many synonyms as possible and tried to spice it up. Any more and it will violate POV, weasel words, and peacock. I think with the type of info available it's pretty nicely and safely written. It's also a single paragraph (which IS needed for 1b) in a 40k+ article. Ah... but you didn't read above Composition. Weird that. RB88 (T) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

--Andy Walsh (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You've resolved most of my concerns, and I won't be coming back to review the rest. Good luck. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: prose & clarity issues. Per my random paragraph test: Original:

The album has been acclaimed by media outlets since its release. John Swenson of Rolling Stone explained that the interplay among the three vocalists was one of its most pleasing elements; he stated, "Despite the interminable delay in finishing the record, Rumours proves that the success of Fleetwood Mac was no fluke."[56] Robert Christgau, reviewing in The Village Voice, described the album as "more consistent and more eccentric" than its predecessor and thought that it "jumps right out of the speakers at you".[57] John Rockwell of The New York Times wrote that it is "a delightful disk, and one hopes the public thinks so, too",[58] while Dave Marsh of the St. Petersburg Times commented that its songs are "as grandly glossy as anything right now".[59] In contrast, Robert Hilburn of Los Angeles Times called Rumours a "frustratingly uneven" record,[60] while Juan Rodriguez of The Gazette suggested that, while the music is "crisper and clearer", Fleetwood Mac's ideas are "slightly more muddled".[61] The album featured at number four in the The Village Voice's 1977 Pazz & Jop critics' poll, which aggregates the votes of hundreds of prominent reviewers.[62]

Issues:

1. The album has been acclaimed by media outlets since its release is such a bad sentence. First off, why media outlet? And second, why use the weak acclaimed by? Try: The album received widespread critical acclaim.
2. We next jump to the Rolling Stone Review, oddly focusing on a specific aspect of the album rather than a review of the whole thing, which is what one would expect logically. Or even a summary of the critical reaction, such as: The album received favourable (or laudatory?) reviews in Rolling Stone Magazine, the New York Times, the Village Voice and others.
3. Now introduce specific examples. Robert Christgau, writing in The Village Voice, called the album "more consistent and more eccentric" than its predecessor and said it "jumps right out of the speakers at you". John Rockwell of The New York Times wrote it is "a delightful disk, and one hopes the public thinks so, too." Etc...
4. The album featured at number four in the The Village Voice's 1977 Pazz & Jop critics' poll, which aggregates the votes of hundreds of prominent reviewers. Good ending content, but why featured? Bad prose. In the The Village Voice's 1977 Pazz & Jop critics' poll, an aggregation of prominent critical reviews, (Do we need this detail?) the album was listed at number four.

So, too many prose and logical structure issues to be FA material, which requires a very high standard of both writing and clarity. The tone of the entire article needs to be similarly refined. Eusebeus (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, I'm sick and tired of people not familiar with the WP:ALBUMS guidelines or other FA albums (see Silent Alarm, A Weekend in the City, Remain in Light etc) commenting on aspects which really cannot be or written any other way. And frankly, your paragraph test simply sucks. In a 45+k article, you and the previous oppose focused on singular sections which are admittedly less flowy or showy than the rest because that is how they have to be. The critical section essentially involves listing the views of 10 critics as per WP:ALBUMS. The only changes are with verb synonyms because everything else is essentially a quote. I'm not changing a single thing, because 1. everything is accurate and 2. it's a culmination of all the advice everyone has given in over half a dozen FAs about its content. I might CE it, I might not, but I'm definitely not replying to any of the frivolous comments above. If you want to be a proper reviewers, stop with the flawed paragraph tests and review the whole thing or at least don't take a stance based with terrible sampling techniques. I'm sure the FAC reviewers will see sense. RB88 (T) 11:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• How does WP:ALBUM exempt this article from the FA standards for prose and clarity? I regret you have taken umbrage at my comment (certainly not aimed at you personally), but I took a paragraph at random and noted the flaws. I could repeat the exercise across the article, since the poor prose quality is endemic. Anyway, good luck. Eusebeus (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Where exactly did you read "exempt"? It doesn't, but considering the type of info present in the section, the prose will not be stellar by definition. I've tried to spice it up with everything that I can. Synonyms, joiners, placing similar views or consequential views together. There's so much that can be humanly done to improve the prose without infringing on POV, weasel, and peacock words. It's a very delicate section where a single word out of place could lead to OR. Comments like "the poor prose is endemic" based on a ridiculous sample will get you laughed at in every peer reviewed journal in the land. Either get stuck in and prove your point and the article improves based on your full review or stop with conclusions based unrepresentative data. RB88 (T) 11:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Update Ended up fixing the above niggles when I ce'd the whole thing yesterday. From what I can see, Y2kcrazyjoker4 went through all of it as well and had only minor things to sort out. Also, all 3 supporters so far have extensively ce'd the article before giving a verdict. (Binksternet even gave a marvellous source.) RB88 (T) 23:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note: I left two inline queries (avoid "currently" per WP:MOSDATE#Precise language, instead give an as of date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Dammit, I don't have a guideline to beat this like the Personnel thing last time. Well played mademoiselle. I fixed them, but was wondering if the same applies to the lead and the first sentence's "eleventh". Fourth is the highest I've gone so far in FA. If so, then you can change it yourself, if it's not a bother. Cheeers! RB88 (T) 02:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
    • It was a pretty clean article :) I'll leave the rest to your discretion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
      • OK, thanks. I think the overwhelming convention at WP:ALBUMS is to write the album number fully in the first sentence, so I'll keep it. RB88 (T) 02:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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 17:44, 2 February 2010 [21].

---

Subway (Homicide: Life on the Street)

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is well-written, well-sourced and as comprehensive as possible. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to images; see Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. Eubulides (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, forgot. Alt text added. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 23:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but could you please reword it to avoid proper names in the alt text? Please see WP:ALT #Proper names. Eubulides (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry about that. Alt text isn't my best area. :) Better? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 15:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks, it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support: All of my issues were taken care of in the GAN review I conducted for the article—still, though, please add the ALT text. The Flash ^{talk} 05:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 23:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• This is the first article I've reviewed for some time, so please excuse me for being a little bit out of touch. That said, I don't believe that the criteria have changed that much.

  Prose

  Generally good, with some minor niggles, for example:

  • "as the man police believe may have pushed Lange" → "as a man suspected of pushing Lange"?
  • "...was filmed on location in a real-life Baltimore Metropolitan Transit Authority station.": you don't need "real-life"; the word "on location" implies that already.
  • "Pembleton (Andre Braugher) and Bayliss (Kyle Secor)": give context for people who never watched the show. Just saying the word "Detectives" before makes it much clearer. It would also be helpful to give their first names too, but it's not required for the context.
  • "Biedron says he was bumped from behind along with Lange, but other witnesses give conflicting reports, with some saying Biedron pushed Lange, others saying Lange pushed Biedron and yet others saying it was an accident." -> "Biedron says he was bumped from behind along with Lange, but other witnesses give conflicting reports: some say Biedron pushed Lange; others saying Lange pushed Biedron; and others saying it was an accident."
  • "Pembleton sends Lewis (Clark Johnson) and Falsone (Jon Seda)": see point #3
  • "In this particular episode" -> "In the episode he saw"
  • "Rashomon thing": italics are allowed in quotes
  • "But Goldstein remained convinced": "But", in this case, isn't needed to keep the same context.
    • I think I've addressed all of the specific items you've pointed out, and I'll conduct a more rigorous look through for some additional prose improvements over the next few days. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  The prose can generally be improved with minor changes to remove extraneous words such as "but", "with", "where", and replacing them with things such as colons and semi-colons.

  • • Let me know if anything more should be done! Thanks again! — Hunter Kahn 14:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  Comprehensiveness

  At 45KB, it's on the long side of 45-minute episode FACs, that tend (or used to tend) to around 32KB. Still, I wrote a 110KB article about an episode of the same length, so I can't complain it's too long <g>.

  Well-researched

  Appears to be, using what scant material there would be from twelve years ago, when the Internet was in its infancy; generally, I don't oppose an episode FAC for not having been on LexisNexis.

  Neutrality

  passed.

  Lead section

  concise and offers a nice bitesize of the plot summary too: something I find very hard to do!

  Appropriate structure

  Your structure differs from mine, as I count writing to be part of the production process, but it's still good. If you want to appear a bit more professional, you could rename "Plot summary" to "Synopsis".

  • Done! lol — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  Citation style

  consistent.

  Images

  you use two fair use images.

  • Infobox image: you are correct in your assessment that the concept is difficult to explain without an image. I also appreciate that you gave a good secondary reason: that it portrays the relationship Pembleton develops with a dying man, a crucial point in the script.
  • Filming image: again, good rationale, showing how the camer a tricks were visualised and showing how cramped the space was better than the text.

  Length

  not too long, not too short.

• Support. All in all, the article is pretty good. There are some minor prose issues, but it will not stop me from supporting this candidcay. Good work. And, perhaps you could tell me: was this the basis for a similar Robot Chicken sketch? Sceptre ^(talk) 02:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm, interesting. I'm not sure, but I'll definitely look into it. Thanks for the review, and the support! — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Source comments Everything fine. Minor thing: If you're going to include publisher location, do it for all refs or none for uniformity's sake. As it is, some do and don't. RB88 (T) 23:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• I added the publisher to all the news sources, but was hoping you could check to make sure this is what you meant. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 14:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  I think he means locations of the publishers. The documentaries have the location of Baltimore, Maryland but some other references don't (6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18). Mm40 (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Since I can't get the location info for all of these sources, I just removed it from the ones who that had it, for conformity sake. — Hunter Kahn 22:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose on criterion three:
  • File:Homicide life on the street subway.jpg - Needs to attribute a copyright holder per NFCC#10A. (This is a minor issue; oppose is per issue below).
  • File:Homicide life on the street subway filming.jpg - Doesn't appear to be making a significant contribution to our understanding - NFCC#8. The purpose includes:
    • A) "illustrates the John Hopkins Hospital Metro Subway Station which was used as a setting". This is a real station (i.e. free image could be obtained - NFCC#1). Setting is also perfectly clear in File:Homicide life on the street subway.jpg. NFCC#3A requires minimal use.
    • B) "[illustrates] the camera and sound techniques used for the filming". The back of a seated cameraman and a man holding a boom mic is poor, at best, illustration. No meaningful technique is illustrated and technique, if any, does not appear counter intuitive, unique, or otherwise complex enough as to require a non-free image to understand.
    • C) "[illustrates] the cramped conditions the cast was faced with with during the making of the episode". Cramped quarters are illustrated equally well by File:Homicide life on the street subway.jpg. The crew is shown to have ample room; both images depict the limited space for the cast. NFCC#3A: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" (emphasis mine).
    • Image also does not credit the copyright holder, but that is moot as per above. Эlcobbola _talk 17:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I've removed the filming photo from the article and added what I believe is the correct copyright info to the other image. — Hunter Kahn 19:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks. No further criterion three concerns. Эlcobbola _talk 20:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - No major concerns for me; looks pretty good. ceranthor 23:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Reluctant withdrawal of oppose. Tony (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Not well enough written. Here are random issues just in the lead.

• Remove the second word. Possibly remove "overall", which is odd. Can "simultaneously" be removed?
• "helmed" is a word I've never heard before. I had to look it up. Why not use plain English?
• "based ... off". Isn't it "on"?
• NYC hardly needs to be linked; don't you want to avoid diluting the valuable links? Who would click on that link, especially when it's probably present in the link-target just before.
• Remove "some"; both of them.
• "overwhelmingLY"
• only number three. Make the logic easy for the readers. Shouldn't the "but" be an "and"?
• Remove "long". Replace "called" with a comma.

An independent copy-edit is needed throughout. Tony (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've fixed all of the specific items you've identified (Except I kept the wikilink for NYC, which I think is totally appropriate.) I would suggest that since this article already has pretty strong support in this FAC, that any grammatical problems are manageable in this FAC process, and I'm willing to address any and all outstanding problems that can be identified. — Hunter Kahn 02:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Tony, now that a fairly thorough independent copy edit has been conducted by the reviewer below, would you consider withdrawing your oppose vote? — Hunter Kahn 23:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comments from Binksternet (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The closing of the third lead paragraph is a sentence that is too long: "Fleder included cinematic elements in the episode that were uncommon in the traditionally naturalistic show, which led to conflicts between Fleder and director of photography Alex Zakrzewski." Split this up.
    • Done. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "The conception, making and reception of 'Subway'"... I am wondering what would make this sentence better. Swap "making" with "production"? Losing all those words and starting with "Subway"?
    • I did the latter. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I think "discussing their lives and experiences" is redundant.
    • Dropped "experiences". — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • You can trim "a New York Police Department detective who responds to emergency situations" to just "a New York Police Department detective". The fact that some detectives don't respond to emergencies is not important here.
    • Ok. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • These two sentences need some tweaking: "Due to a long history of poor ratings, NBC officials had been placing pressure on Homicide: Life on the Street producers to improve its viewership and become more popular than its higher-rated time-slot competitor, Nash Bridges, or risk cancellation. Yoshimura and the other producers, however, decided to continue pushing the envelope with "Subway" because they felt the series to maintain its quality and survive." I think "risk cancellation" should be pulled off of the first sentence because "survive" is in the second one. The second sentence is missing a word, probably "needed" as in "needed to maintain". "Due to a long history of poor ratings" should be something like "Distressed from a long stretch of poor ratings, NBC executives placed pressure".
    • I incorporated all your suggestions and fixed the missing wor. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Please wikilink the first "greenlighted". Don't need "NBC executives": just "NBC" will suffice here, after greenlighted.
    • Ok. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Please split up a long sentence such that "Yoshimura anticipated backlash about the episode, but said, 'Every episode, we have trouble with NBC'" stops at "episode" and restarts "He said,..."
    • Done. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The phrase "a trend throughout the sixth season of the detectives" is clunky. How about "a sixth season trend in which the detectives"?
    • Ok. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No need for hyphen in "visually-engaging".
    • Dropped the hyphen.
  • Need a reference after the quote "one of these indie kind of guys (who is) going to come in and try to reinvent our show". The GAN people missed that one...
    • Added. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If Yoshimura did not say "who is" in his quote then that editorial addition goes in brackets, not parentheses. Same with "who are" which comes in another quote.
    • Replaced with brackets.
  • The quote, "frankly, nauseated me, the idea of that", where did that come from? Are you quoting Braugher? Needs a reference.
    • Added the reference. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Please clarify "not only based on his acting, but his short physical structure" to become "not only based on his acting, but on his short physical structure". Or "short stature."
    • Got it. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Trim "does not get along with him well" to just "does not get along with him."
    • Done. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikilink storyboarded.
    • Ok. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you change "Braugher had some previous scenes with D'Onofrio" to "Braugher had some previous dramatic interaction with D'Onofrio"?
    • Changed it. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't "become emotionally invested" be better than "become heavily invested"?
    • Yup, changed it. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Too many superlatives: "very over-the-top and bombastic" Over-the-top doesn't need very.
    • Dropped the very. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • What if the "the actor was acting too crazy" was changed to "the character appeared too crazy in earlier scenes—the actor was telegraphing..."? Pipe link to Telegraphing (entertainment).
    • Done. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
      • The new wording is awkward, with "and the actor telegraphing". Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I was missing a word. Added it. — Hunter Kahn 21:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

...I'm back picking up where I left off yesterday. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• • In the editing section, a guy name Felder helps. Fleder?
    • Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The quote "The feeling was let's get out of the insanity of the sweeps and say, 'This is a little different' (and) hopefully we'll bring more people to this episode" should have brackets, not parentheses. Or drop the "and" to replace it with a dash or a semicolon. When he says "let's get out..." he is sort of quoting the general feeling. Do you think we should use one more layer of quotes-within-quotes? If so, this would be the result:

Warren Littlefield said, "The feeling was, 'let's get out of the insanity of the sweeps and say, "This is a little different"—hopefully we'll bring more people to this episode.'"

• • • I changed it to your suggestion. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "When all Nielsen Ratings markets were accounted for, "Subway" was seen by 10.3 million households." It was seen by that many before the ratings were tallied. The tally only determined how many after the fact. How about "When all the Nielsen Ratings markets were accounted for, "Subway" was listed as having been seen by 10.3 million households"? Or similar.
    • Done. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The phrase "third-most ranked" probably wants to be "third-highest ranked".
    • Ok. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't much like "due to" in a sentence. As a result, I am turning one of your sentences around in my head to see how it could be reworded: "Although Homicide: Life on the Streets typically placed third behind those two programs, NBC executives hoped "Subway" would outperform Nash Bridges due to the amount of advertising and press coverage it received." Maybe this would work for you: "NBC executives had hoped that the extensive promotion and press coverage of "Subway" would help it outperform Nash Bridges and so lift Homicide: Life on the Street above its usual third place in the rankings. When it did not, "Subway" was considered a commercial failure..."
    • Sounds good! Changed it. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Need references after the quotes "a tour de force for D'Onofrio and Braugher" and "This is as gripping an hour of television as you're ever likely to see."
    • Ok. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • When you say that Jay Rabinowitz and Wayne Hyde won an award, you are following an account of awards not being won. Do you want a connective word to tell the reader that this next sentence is not about more losses? Something like "Nevertheless" or "However" or similar.
    • Added the However. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Please rewrite this sentence so that it does not have two instances of the word "history": "The documentary included a brief history of Homicide: Life on the Street and its history of both critical acclaim and low ratings."
    • Done. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The phrase "intelligent and quality episode" is clunky. How about "intelligent, high quality episode" or "intelligent and superior episode" or "intelligent and distinctive episode"?
    • I changed it to the first suggestion. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The term "radio microphones" should be pipe linked to, or changed to, wireless microphones.
    • Ok. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Two sentences in a row begin with "Fleder, comma" Rephrase one of them.
    • Done. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Fleder's feelings about the documentary crew's presence peak at his statement about pulling away from the focus. His final sentence "To me, they were kind of there lurking" is not needed for comprehension, and it weakens the power and finality of "pulling away from the focus."
    • Dropped the lurking bit. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • We need a connecting word: "Owen said, 'Rare, because' ". Maybe Owen said this was "Rare, because..." Or Owen said this was rare, "because..." If Owen's "Rare" is kept, the capital letter should be made lower case.
    • Changed it. Please check that I got it right. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • In Manuel Mendoza's quote, his "Homicide" is capitalized. Why? Is he using a shortened version of the name of the TV series? Is he simply referring to the concept of murder? What the hell is he talking about anyway? You cast his quote as praise, but it could be interpreted otherwise. That quote doesn't make me understand the documentary or Mendoza's viewpoint more than before. Expand on it for clarity or delete it.
    • He is referring to the show. "Homicide" should have been italicized, and it is now. Does that clarify it enough to readers that he is in fact talking about the show, not homicide in general? Let me know, and if not, I'll rework it further... — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The whole article ends with a whimper, draining off into a humorous scene in the documentary that critics agree upon. If you had your wish (and you do), how would you like the article to end? A high note about artistic excellence? A cautionary note about aiming high but missing? Maybe Rob Owen can be tapped again to give the final sendoff quote to the article. It should end strongly.
    • Well, if you're asking me, I guess the ideal ending would be something to the affect of the John Leonard quote in the pull box, about how although the ratings payoff wasn't there, the artistic experience is genuine. But it seems to me the documentary should be at the end of the structure of the article, so how could I address this concern? — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't really know the answer. It's not a deal breaker for me at this FAC, but I wanted you to notice again how the article ends, and perhaps to begin thinking of what you want the reader to go home with. Overall, I'm this →||← close to supporting. Just fix the reading flow around "and the actor telegraphing" and you'll have it. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I've fixed the telegraphing item. As far as the ending, you bring up an interesting point I hadn't considered before. I'm going to give this one more thought and see if I can think of a solution without disrupting the structure of the article. Thanks for the thorough copy edit! — Hunter Kahn 21:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. My concerns have been addressed. Nice work! Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support Nice nice work. A few minor quibbles.

I took the liberty of fixing a sstrange repetition "the a"

several characters describing different portrayals of a murder several characters offer differing description of the same murder.  ???

cliched moral...clichéd moral

add a artistic visual touch an artistic....? (in filming section)

Really nice. I'm happy to support. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support! I think I addressed the items you pointed out. — Hunter Kahn 04:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Spot check: "Writing" subsection.
  • "wanted him to be placed into a situation where he"—I think "in", not "into". Later in the sentence "would cause"?
  • It's not wrong: "wanted the Lange character to be a mean and unpleasant person, rather than the nice and innocent victim more typically portrayed", but you might consider "wanted the Lange character to be mean and unpleasant, rather than the nice and innocent victim more typically portrayed".
  • "Yoshimura wanted Braugher to initially treat D'Onofrio like bad luck and try to keep his distance at first, but gradually ..." We have both "initially" and "at first". Treating someone "like bad luck" is pretty colloquial and not pan-English. I think I can work out what it means.
  • "A New York City Fire Department firefighter named Tim Brown served as a consultant for most of the technical information in the episode"—you could pipe out the "Fire Department" and pipe in "firefighter", to avoid the rep. We'd end up with this (plus other changes): "A New York City firefighter, Tim Brown, was consultant for most of the technical information in the episode".
  • Why is "Japan" linked? Is it obscure, even to a seven-year-old? Does the link-target increase the reader's understanding of this topic?
  • ""Subway" also continued a sixth season trend in which the detectives became more personally involved with the victims, and thus becoming more emotionally drained at their deaths." I'd remove "also". I don't think it works grammatically unless the "and" is removed.
  • "In order to". PLEASE. "To". And there's a clunky and redudant "also" soon after.
  • Comma a must for meaning, after philosophical". It's ambiguous without.

Well, I'm disappointed. When you said fairly thorough copy-edit I was worried, justifiably. It's admirable in its detail; it lets us into the production process. It's very long, but I'm not complaining; although if there's a way to trim it, please consider. I'm withdrawing my oppose reluctantly, and won't stand in the way of promotion. But I think you need to have it looked through by someone different. It's about 90 minutes' work throughout, whether it's done before or after promotion. Tony (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ok. Thanks for the comments, and I've addressed all the items from the Writing section you've identified. — Hunter Kahn 19:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support. I have to concur with Tony here; just a brief glance this morning revealed several places where redundant words make some statements a bit of a slog to get through; where the intended meaning has been conveyed by the time the reader is halfway through a sentence, there's no sense in continuing said sentence with words and phrases that by that point are implicit and only serve to delay the reader's getting to the next piece of interesting information. And it is an interesting article, giving a deeper-than-usual insight into the production process. I considered lodging a weak oppose, but other than the redundancy issue, there isn't a whole lot wrong; it's probably good enough to sneak by, and having looked at the article in more depth since this morning, everything content-related I'm happy with. I hope the examples I presented earlier ([22]; [23]; [24]; [25]; [26]; [27]) give the nominator some idea about what I mean, as well as the deliberate strike-throughs in this statement. Was anything at all lost by removing those words? Long story short, I strongly urge you to give the prose another pass; it'll be worth it. And if you find it hard going, it's worth refreshing one's memory of Tony's redundancy exercises every so often. All the best, Steve ^T • C 11:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Support — This candidate has been here for a long time. To me it still lacks the full shine of a Featured Article, but there is nothing I can put my finger on precisely with regard to the quality of the prose. It is an engaging article—albeit a little too long for the subject—and the quality of the research is high. I think the article should be promoted in the hope that this will encourage the nominator and other editors to spend an hour or so more time working on it before it is chosen to feature on the Main Page. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• I could certainly do that. I suppose I could also nominate it for an independent peer review before pursuing the front page. I may give it a few weeks before I do so given the backlog there, but I'd certainly be willing to do it. — Hunter Kahn 22:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Prose. Here's a randomly chosen paragraph:

Original:

The stunt simulating Lange's fall into the subway train was filmed on August 27, the second production day, and Yoshimura said it was the most challenging part of the shoot. D'Onofrio and MacVittie had to arrive at the platform just as the subway train was approaching, and their scene had to be reshot several times because the train did not pass the actors on time. The crew also filmed shots of a dummy dressed as Lange being dragged by the train inside the dummy wall, but most of those scenes were not used in the final cut.[2] The remaining five filming days focused primarily on the scenes between Braugher and D'Onofrio, which Yoshimura and Fleder felt were the most crucial element of the episode. During the filming of the climactic scene with Pembleton and Lange which ends with Lange's death, several members of the crew reacted emotionally, something Yoshimura said is extremely rare since the crew members typically look at their work as a job and do not become emotionally invested in the story they are filming.

Rewrite:

The stunt simulating Lange's fall into the subway train, the most challenging part of the shoot, was filmed on the second day of production, August 27. The tricky choreography of the scene required multiple takes to get right. These included shots of a dummy dressed as Lange being dragged by the train, although most were discarded from the final version. The remaining five days of shooting focused largely on the scenes between Braugher and D'Onofrio, which Yoshimura and Fleder agreed was the at the emotional heart of the episode. Indeed, the filming of the episode's climactic scene affected several production crew members, a relatively rare occurrence on the set of the show.

Thus: major need to improve style, flow and prose as well as expurgate too much trivia, which gets in the way of the article's exposition and has made it too long. Happy to reconsider once the prose has been reworked from top to bottom. Eusebeus (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Well, it seems to me this objection is too general and comes way too late in the FAC process for me to address in its entirety. all I can suggest is there have already been suggestions about the prose that have been previously addressed, and those votes have switched from oppose to support. I will also point out that I have already committed to addressing prose issues further even after this FAC process ends. But I respect your vote and am willing to let the chips fall where they may. — Hunter Kahn 14:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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 17:44, 2 February 2010 [28].

---

Aaliyah

Nominator(s): — ξ^xplicit 20:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this article meets all requirements to become a featured article. Several months and hard research and dedication have gone into this article and I would like to get this through the "final" phase. Thank you. — ξ^xplicit 20:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by an odd name

• Some of the citations, like ref 80, contain quotes before the citation data. (I think they're quotes, because they have statements like "Actually, she's a streetwise Jackson with a far more soulful song selection" that aren't neutral.) Consider putting the quotes in the |quote= attribute of {{cite web}}, etc., instead. (You will then need to change double quotation marks within them to single ones if that's done.) I'm not sure it's required by the criteria (which demand consistency above all), but it's hard to tell they are actually quotes from the sources and not extra encyclopedic notes. --an odd name 20:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  Fixed. — ξ^xplicit 20:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool. More stuff:

• No dab links or dead external links—good.
• Alt text looks good. The portrait alt looks slightly boring, but describes the subject well and I'm not sure if it can be improved (see WP:ALT#Portraits). Anyone else here have a second opinion?
• Most dates are Month Day, Year throughout, but I changed some ISO style dates—make sure they are one format on text and one (same or different) format in refs.

--an odd name 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - A nice variation from the usual articles, however, I wouldn't consider the prose near the top of the article to be at FA quality (ie down to the beginning of Posthumous career). If you could contact an independent copyeditor, that would be nice. The rest of the article is good. I've given my nitpicks below.
• She attended a Catholic school, Gesu Elementary, where she received a part in the stage play Annie in first grade; from then on, she was determined to be an entertainer.[7] - maybe better as became instead of was?

  Seems this was correct by yourself? — ξ^xplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Aaliyah's mother was a vocalist, - Do you know what type? Not particularly significant, obviously, but could be helpful

  Not haven't found too much information about her mother's background, I'm afraid. — ξ^xplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• She had the role of an ancient vampire, Queen Akasha, which she described as a "manipulative, crazy, sexual being".[11] - "had" the role?

  Changed "had" to "played". — ξ^xplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, looks great. Good work. ceranthor 20:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments: mostly fine citations, needs a little polish only.

Check your citations for titles, such as MTV News which appears to function as a magazine, ie if cite web |title=MTV News or MTV News if manual. Same with the following: Slant Magazine; CNN.com; BBC News; etc. You may want to check if CBS News; ABC News (which ABC pray tell? You mean ABC News [USA]) functions as if a newspaper or magazine.

I'm not aware that any of these websites have publications (Slant Magazine is a bit tricky; they're an online magazine with no publications whatsoever). — ξ^xplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A publication is about its mode of presentation, not its physical format. BBC News online acts as a Newspaper. An online magazine that acts as a an edited magazine is a magazine not a website. A novel if online is a book not a website. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Unpublished report, ""NTSB Identification: MIA01RA225". National Transportation Safety Board. Retrieved June 11, 2009" remove quotes from around the title, consider cite report if using cite book type style. (Quotes and Italics indicate publication in an ISSN/ISBN/utterance for public consumption manner).

Now using {{cite report}} template. — ξ^xplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad citation. Article in title field, title (Billboard) missing, "Pesselnick, Jill (November 17, 2001). Madonna Earns Another RIAA Diamond. 113. Nielsen Business Media. p. 69. ISSN 0006-2510. Retrieved May 15, 2009."

Speaking of, why aren't you using volume, page, ISSN for all Billboard sources then?

Corrected title. This was the only information that wasn't obtainable on billboard.com. — ξ^xplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph. I think you mean The Daily Telegraph [UK]. no?

Yes, but does the [UK] need to be added? The article The Daily Telegraph is about the UK newspaper. — ξ^xplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes the UK does need to be added. Newspapers also called The Daily Telegraph are major daily newspapers of note in other nations as well. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Generally you're over linking news source titles, and inconsistently linking the first or all. Go over and either link all, or only the first occurance, or none.

I believe these were referring to the citations that used the {{harvnb}} template. I've unlinked all. — ξ^xplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Generally fine, this are polish (except that Bad citation). Fifelfoo (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Image concerns:

• File:Aaliyah - More Than a Woman sample.ogg: I am not enamoured with inserting a sound bite that is accompanied by critical commentary in the form of a caption. It seems to render the music (a crucial part of her legacy) insignificant. Could not the commentary be worked into her Legacy section. User:Sfan00 IMG has tagged for further reduction of this sample. Please contact him to check if he has issues with the length or the fidelity of the sample (can either one or the other be reduced further?).

  The critical commentary on this specific clip is also in the text. I'll leave Sfan00 IMG (talk · contribs) a note. — ξ^xplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• File:Aaliyah - If Your Girl Only Knew sample.ogg: same as the above clip.

  I'll try to get to this later on today. — ξ^xplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed up some bits of File:Aaliyah in blue.jpg to comply with NFCC, so it should be fine. File:Ferncliff.jpg is verifiably in the public domain, thanks in part to the EXIF data that identifies it as a video cam shot. Jappalang (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• "... began to film for her second film ..."

  Reads rather awkward (repetition of "film").

  Reworded to "After completing Romeo Must Die, Aaliyah began to work on her second film..." — ξ^xplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• "With the release of the Matrix Ultimate Collection series, clips of Aaliyah were included in the tribute section."

  Suggest changing this to "Aaliyah's scenes were later included in the tribute section of the Matrix Ultimate Collection series."

  Done. — ξ^xplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• "... which led women in the United States and Japan to utilize her look."

  What does "utilize her look" mean?

  It basically means that women dress similarly (if not exactly) to how she did. Not too sure how to reword it. — ξ^xplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

  Suggestion: "She often wore black clothing, starting a trend for similar fashion among women in United States and Japan." Jappalang (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

  Reworded. — ξ^xplicit 04:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Farley, Kenyetta, and Sutherland have mentioned Aaliyah's involvement in charities, especially in her early life.[29] Why is this not explored?

  I'll give this a try a bit later today. — ξ^xplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

  I've added some bits. — ξ^xplicit 02:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

  Although stricken, I think there should be further exploration into this; one source, for example, made comments that her early charity work influenced her character. Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• This source explains Aaliyah's Arabic name, which seems interesting. Why is it not used?

  I personally found this trivial. Additionally, other publications have stated what her name means in Swahali (same outcome, but difference languages). It seemed best to just leave it out. — ξ^xplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

  Okay, but I will leave this unstruck, in case others think otherwise. Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

From a casual read through. Jappalang (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Please add the {{Harvnb}} template to the book references as a number of books are being used to refer and it would be difficult to find a particular one at one go. Also consider using {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} templates for the book references section as that would make the section look tight and constrict. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Just a point here about citation templates. There's nothing in the policies or guidelines that says they ought to be used, and many editors prefer that they not be used. They can cause problems, including slowing down page loading considerably. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, {{Harvnb}} is in use. The ref parameter was adjusted to not display blue links; see comments above. — ξ^xplicit 21:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

  No problems. Its not absolutely necessary, just the feel enhancer. The article is still FA worthy without it. So I support it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Source comments Everything fine.

• Slant should always be cited like this: Slant
• If you're going to include both work and publisher for print media, then make sure all instances have it. I think a few are missing publisher.
• Books only used once have to be placed in the notes rather than the ref section. It's a bit cumbersome especially when they're only cited once.

RB88 (T) 02:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• All done, except the last. Is this preference or something that's generally practiced? — ξ^xplicit 21:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

  It's widely practised and I encourage it here. It helps organisation and reader ease. RB88 (T) 00:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

  Wasn't aware there were so many... ate up half the list. But anywho, done. — ξ^xplicit 01:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

  Great, but I think you've pasted over the page numbers. Make sure to put them back in, in the ref this time. RB88 (T) 01:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

  D'oh! Restored. — ξ^xplicit 02:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Well written and nicely presented article that I feel meets the FA criteria. Pyrrhus16 23:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - the prose needed some minor tweaking but no deal-breakers remain that I can see. Comprehensive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I found this interesting and generally well written, although it still has some prose and organization problems. Organizationally, some of the paragraphs don't stick to their subject. For example, one paragraph includes info on her burial and the NTSB investigation. These shouldn't be together, paragraph-wise, or subheading wise, probably. There are many cases of tangled verb tenses. For example, she would sing at weddings (etc.), and in the next sentence, we hear she is 5. She was raised along side her brother....ummmm....and what precisely does that mean. She and her brother were raised in Detroit Michigan (or where ever it was)? It really could use another once-over by the editor, or someone. Otherwise, it's a very interesting article, nicely done. Just those comments, and if it could be tightened up writing wise, I'll support. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  A bit of clean up was done. Hopefully things are smoother. — ξ^xplicit 22:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Excellent and comprehensive article. I was impressed with it a couple months ago when I first read it, so it was a pleasant surprise to notice it at FAC now. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Article contains invalid HTML, which can be found in the W3C validator report for it; can you please fix this? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  The invalid HTML seems to be generated from the headings that begin with numbers ("1979–1990: Early life", for example). This seems a bit odd to me as these aren't errors. — ξ^xplicit 22:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support I like the balance of detail and concision here. I was expecting an insanely long fan-driven piece and found instead a well-calibrated treatment of her life and career. Prose has some issues, but they are largely mitigated by the manageable length of the article. Eusebeus (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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 17:44, 2 February 2010 [30].

---

Chadderton

Nominator(s): --Jza84 |  Talk  00:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I'm confident this article passes the FA criteria by way of being thorough, well referenced and of a befitting quality to feature on the main page. There was no opposition at its last FAC, but the article did lack some grace in terms of grammar, formatting as well as some of the most advanced/uber-new FA criteria (such as ALT text). Since the original nomination, Chadderton has gone through extensive copyeditting). Feedback welcome of course. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
  • Two deadlinks found with the FAC toolbox
    • Got em with this diff. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes (I noted HMSO, but there may be others. Yanks won't have the first clue what that is (well, most. I do, but I'm weird that way) Also URBED
    • Done with this diff. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • What makes http://www.givemefootball.com/player-profiles/david-platt a reliable source?
    • It is "The Official Website of The Professional Footballers' Association", the world's oldest professional sportsman's association (more here). The factoid it is supporting is also stated by England's Football Association. Although they have the style and grace of Myspace, I'm confident these are as reliable as one can get. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Minor comments addressed.

• Prose: Are the Asshetons the Assheton Baronets? If so, please add a link.
  • Done. I didn't know we had that article. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I prefer the history section to be written in the past tense rather than using "ing" endings, but this is a minor point.
  • "correlated to supporting" is cumbersome; please try to find another way to phrase this.
    • I think this should be clearer. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Most areas are given in acres followed by hectares, but this is switched in the "Landmarks" section. Perhaps you should switch the imperial and metric units around in this section so that it matches the rest of the article.
    • Should be sorted with this diff. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Most -ise endings use the "s" form, but you have "Authorized" for the King James Bible. The "z" form is also used in British English, so perhaps you should consider using Oxford spelling throughout. Again, this is a minor point as both forms are correct.
    • Should be sorted with this diff. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Images: All licenses OK.
  • On the alt text, I'm not sure that "On this map Chadderton is..." is useful. Three-quarters in from the western edge of what? The southern edge of what? I think the sentence can be cut without detriment.
    • I'm inclined to agree. I think this was the result of feedback at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chadderton/archive1. It was close to the inception of Alt text. I don't think it adds value. May I assume there is no consensus to keep it? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, I think it should go. DrKiernan (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • You haven't changed the translation of the motto: I thought it had been agreed that this was wrong?
    • sorted per talk. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• I'm satisfied that the article meets all the other criteria. My main concern is the motto. DrKiernan (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC) amended 13:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments beginning a read through and prose massage now. I will jot queries below: No dealbreakers outstanding. Comprehensive ++ and prose okay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Toponymic evidence... - is there a clearer way of saying this for the average lay reader? if it is too wordy, I'd settle for the bluelink provided but might be worth thinking about.

• Hopefully this does the trick? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• That'll do nicely sir. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The beginning of the Early history section is tricky, with a sentence on Britons, and then jumping into the Romans. I was wondering whether there was any other material about ancient Britons which could be added. I see the problem that further expanding of the name duplicates material in the etymology section above. Not sure if anything can be done here but just noting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'll try dig around, but thusfar, Wikipedia has the sum of all I've found about the Britons in Chadderton. I'll ask WP:GM if they have anything. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Foxdenton Hall was restored in 1965, after much controversy. - why? Any info on this?

• Hopefully this is clearer. Not sure why I had left it so vauge. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The article contains invalid HTML, as per its W3C validator report. Can you please fix this? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmmm! This is a new one. I haven't come across this before. Is there a guideline that can interpret that page and explain what needs to be done? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • There is a help page now: I just wrote one. (Thanks for suggesting it.) Please see Help:Markup validation. If it doesn't explain things clearly enough, please let me know. Eubulides (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support I've read this before, and I thought I'd GAd it, but it appears that I only made two (of 904) edits. A nice article, and I'm happy to go with this one Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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 17:44, 2 February 2010 [31].

---

Umbriel (moon)

Nominator(s): Ruslik_Zero 20:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, in my opinion, it is ready. This article is about one the five big moons of Uranus, the third candidate for the FA status. Ruslik_Zero 20:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments from Binksternet (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• The Uranus template at the bottom lacks alt text for its image.

  This is a purely decorative image.

• Checklinks shows the URLs are all good.
• Dablinks shows two problems: one Setebos dab link, and one redirect which points back to article.

  I removed link to Setebos before the nomination, but the toolserver have not caught up (it currently shows the article does not exist). The second link is in a navbox.

• I don't think an en dash is needed in "co-rotates" and "co-rotation". A hyphen seems like enough.

  Fixed.

• This sentence needs a second em dash or some other choice of punctuation or parentheses: "Umbriel as well as another Uranian satellite—Ariel were discovered by William Lassell on 24 October 1851."

  Removed emdash.

• This sentence might be better with a colon swapped for the em dash: "The latter could include rock and heavy organic compounds—tholins."

  Enclosed tholins in parentheses.

• This sentence needs a second em dash or a different punctuation solution: "Opposite to what is observed for another dark Uranian moon—Oberon, the surface of Umbriel is slightly blue in color..."

  Replaced with comma.

• A colon for the em dash? "Scientists have so far recognized only one class of geological features on Umbriel—craters." Your call.

  I prefer emdash.

• Need the words "of" and "wide": "...from tens to hundreds kilometers."

  Rephrased.

• In the lede, the phrase "although there is evidence (canyons) of early endogenic processes" might be recast as "although the presence of canyons suggests early endogenic processes" or similar. The parentheses just don't seem necessary.

  Agree.

• Does "carbon rich material" need an adjectival hyphen, to make "carbon-rich material"?

  Agree.

• How about "from bombardment by charged particles" to replace your "caused by bombardment by charged particles"?

  Accepted.

• What did scientists conclude when they saw all the craters with no rays? Let the reader know.

  There is no specific meaning. It is just an observation, which may be important, but may not.

• The word atmosphere doesn't occur in the article. Please add something about the presence or absence.

  I added a parameter into infobox indication that surface pressure is zero (no atmosphere). However, it would be difficult to find a ref that unequivocally says this, because it is usually thought to be obvious. Ruslik_Zero 18:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Rather than adding a whole subsection of the infobox to say that the moon has no atmosphere, it could be stated in the article in two or three words. Binksternet (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I added something to the orbit section. Ruslik_Zero 18:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• This sentence needs a bit of work: "Umbriel's most prominent surface feature is Wunda crater located near moon's equator, which has the diameter of about 131 km." How about "Near Umbriel's equator lies the most prominent surface feature: Wunda crater, which has a diameter of about 131 km."?

  Accepted.

• Why is there one instance of the word "Umbral" describing polygons? Is this supposed to be "Umbrielian"?

  I removed it, because "Umbral" (it is not a typo) is more often used in the phrase "Umbral material" referring to the dark material on the surface of Umbriel.

• "The polygons were identified from the accurate photometric measurements..." Which accurate measurements? Either state which, or remove "the".

  Clarified.

• This sentence can be trimmed slightly: "Its surface may be covered by a relatively thin layer made of a dark material, which was excavated by an impact or expelled in an explosive volcanic eruption." => "Its surface may be covered by a relatively thin layer of dark material excavated by an impact or expelled in an explosive volcanic eruption."

  Accepted.

• Which heavenly body is being referred to by "it"? Saturn? Uranus? Umbriel? "...it may have been relatively water-poor."

  Subnebula.

• The word ocean is misleading, since the concept is one of a subterranean water body: "A layer of liquid water (ocean) rich in dissolved ammonia..." Most people will visualize an ocean as being between the surface and the atmosphere.

  Ocean or subsurface ocean are terms widely used in literature, so it should remain (see ref 20, for example).

• Trim the redundancy: "no mission to this planet is planned in the foreseeable future" could become "no mission to this planet is planned", or "no further missions to this planet have been planned."

  Trimmed. Ruslik_Zero 11:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Good article! Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the references, I noted USGS but there may be others.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Spelled out. Ruslik_Zero 11:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ongoing comments'

• This source talks about a "fluorescent Cheerio" and speculates that the darkness of the surface to the presence of methane and irradiation from Uranus (a whole page about Umbriel is missing from the preview, and I have no access to books). Is any of this worth keeping? :* The "bright ring" mentioned in the article is apparently about 150 km across, and is twice as reflective as Umbrial's average..here. Keep or not keep; up to you. • Ling.Nut 11:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• More theories about coloration here. Up to yuo to decide if keepable.
• More about methane ice, magnetic fields etc. here. • Ling.Nut 12:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually Wunda (fluorescent Cheerio) is already mentioned and various theories on origin of the dark material are already discussed. Ruslik_Zero 14:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I thought that someone might see the Cheerio nickname and try to find it here, to no avail. Also, the links provided a few new details, or so I thought. I didn't see the methane etc. bit in the explanations, forex... but as I said, you know more than I do. If you think it doesn't need to go in, then OK. • Ling.Nut 14:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"fluorescent Cheerio" is a colloquial name, which is rarely used now. So, I do not think it should be mentioned in this article. On the other hand, it can be included in the article about Wunda (crater). As to methane, it is actually mentioned in the 'Origin' section. However methane is not thought to have been abundant in the Uranus' system, as the main carrier of carbon was probably carbon monoxide, not methane. In addition, methane ice is not stable on the surfaces of Uranian moons, and I doubt organic compounds can be produced from it. Ruslik_Zero 19:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - Well written, clear and quite concise (even the heavier parts!). I tweaked some things myself to avoid writing them here. There is a reference to 'N₂', is this different to Nitrogen? One possible 'problem' I can see is unit conversions, I started adding additional conversion templates as there were some there already but stopped as the amount of numbers grew. Do the astronomy articles have an exemption from MOS:CONVERSIONS? Just wondering. I write articles on old British aircraft piston engines and had to add millimetres prior to FAC (although I think it looks daft personally). As a retired amateur astronomer this is not far off a 'support' vote from me. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  N₂ is molecular nitrogen. (I added a clarification.) Ruslik_Zero 20:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - massaged the prose a bit early on, but needed to do less in the latter half of the article. No dealbreakers I can see. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

One query - is antifreeze an accepted English word or would it be better to phrase as "compound with antifreeze properties"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is an accepted word, because we have an article about antifreeze. Ruslik_Zero 12:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support • Ling.Nut 06:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: The prose is reasonably well-polished. Some observations, though:

The adjectival form of the name is Umbrielian. Needs a citation; it doesn't appear to be covered by the reference at the end of the sentence.

If this is the case, the radius of the core (317 km (197 mi)) is about 54% of the radius of the moon, Parens within parens? I thought square brackets were used inside parentheses to indicate a parenthetical within a parenthetical. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be my fault as I added the conversion yesterday. I've removed the conversion, noting that you can't use square brackets with the conversion template, could be done manually though. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed Umbrielian as can not find a ref for it. Ruslik_Zero 20:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference 17 is actually two references listed together, in bullet points. What's the reasoning behind the banding together of two references like this? They are papers from separate journal articles in different years by different authors. It looks strange to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

They are used to support the sentence about mutual occultations. They are used only one time each. So I think it is appropriate to group them. Ruslik_Zero 18:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can't object over such a small detail, so I will...

• Support. Article looks terrific. Well-researched, well-sourced, and relatively clear to laymen. Well done, Ruslik. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support: This article provides a comprehensive look at the current state of knowledge of this rather forgotten moon of Uranus, compared to its more geologically active neighbors, Ariel and Miranda. In terms of missing content, I would suggest adding some mention of the source of names for Umbriel's craters (dark spirits for mythologies and folklore around the world, IIRC). I too am a bit confused by the bit about "umbral material". Do you mean a lag deposit, like on Callisto and Iapetus? The wikilink used does not provide useful context, but from the description in the article, I think you mean lag deposit. --Volcanopele (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

  I added information about crater names. As to 'Umbral material', it is mentioned in Buratti 1991, which in turn refers to Croft 1991. It means the dark material, which covers the surface of Umbriel, especially that of dark polygons. It is not lag a lag deposit, because no such deposits are known on Umbriel (due to poor resolotion of images—5 km is not enough). Ruslik_Zero 12:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support with comments. I gave it a read through and it looks to be of FA quality. I only found a few minor concerns:
  • "Both northern and southern hemispheres spend 42 years in complete darkness, and another 42 years in continuous sunlight." Should this say "poles" rather than "hemispheres"? For the full hemispheres, I assume the illumination is phased over the 84 year period.

    Changed to 'poles'.

  • "Other plausible candidates for the dark surface materials include rock, various salts and organic compounds." This follows a discussion of carbon dioxide, which I think forms a transparent ice. So is the "Other" appropriate here? Doesn't this sentence belong in the prior paragraph?

    I removed this sentence as it duplicated the previous paragraph.

  • "The moon's surface shows a strong opposition surge..." Could the cause of this be briefly explained for lay people?

  Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

  I added an explanation of the 'opposition surge'. Ruslik_Zero 16:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support, I couldn't see anything significant not already addressed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Images - both images from US government sources and properly stated as so with appropriate sources listed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.